JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) Rating OUTPERFORM *

Transcription

1 Americas/United States Equity Research Large Cap Banks JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) Rating OUTPERFORM * Price (27 Jan 16, US$) Target price (US$) 75.00¹ 52-week price range Market cap. (US$ m) 211, Enterprise value (US$ m) 211, *Stock ratings are relative to the coverage universe in each analyst's or each team's respective sector. ¹Target price is for 12 months. Share price performance Research Analysts Susan Roth Katzke susan.katzke@credit-suisse.com Evgeny Aleksandrov, CFA evgeny.aleksandrov@credit-suisse.com Athena Xie athena.xie@credit-suisse.com Daily Jan 28, Jan 26, 2016, 1/28/15 = US$ Jan-15 Apr-15 Jul-15 Oct-15 Price Indexed S&P 500 INDEX On 01/26/16 the S&P 500 INDEX closed at Quarterly EPS Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2015A E E COMPANY VISIT FOCUS LIST STOCK Whatever the Scenario that Unfolds... JPM Positioned to Outperform Full detail herein Last week we had the opportunity to meet with JPMorgan CFO Marianne Lake. As one might have expected, our conversation focused on regulation (G-SIB, CCAR, etc.), macro risk and contagion (no change in view), and opportunities to drive earnings growth and returns. We walked in believing this bank to be well prepared to weather whatever storm might be delivered its way; we walked out at least equally as confident. Actively Managing Around the Evolving Regulatory Framework: (1) G- SIB surcharge reductions (from 4.5% to 3.5%) are a significant positive; while management has not reduced its target capital ratio, we believe this to be a possibility, once likely changes to CCAR/CCAR minimums are finalized; (2) CCAR changes--- it seems reasonable to assume that all or some of the G-SIB surcharge will, at some point, be included in the CCAR minimums, with possible mitigating factors; (3) FRTB will drive some risk weighted asset (RWA) inflation; this too can be managed; (4) Basel IV -- too early to know what, if any impact, this might have. Macro View, Risks and Contagion. No change in management's view that the U.S. economy is "chugging along". No material indications of contagion at this point--understand that this bank has multiple data streams/activities through which to monitor this. In terms of the Fed... expect at least one more tightening (several would be more in line with the Fed's "gradual" wording), but understand that JPMorgan doesn't budget based on a bull case scenario. Financial and valuation metrics Year 12/15A 12/16E 12/17E 12/18E EPS (CS adj.) (US$) Prev. EPS (US$) P/E (x) Relative P/E (%) Revenue (US$ m) 96, , ,072.9 Preprovision Income (US$ m) 37,619 42,774 46,966 Book Value (US$) Tangible book value (US$) ROE (%) ROA (%) Book Value (Next Qtr., US$) Tangible BV (Next Qtr., US$) P/BV (x) (Next Qtr.) 0.93 P/TBV (x) (Next Qtr.) 1.2 Dividend (Next Qtr., US$) 1.76 Shares Outstanding (m) 3,713 Dividend yield (%) 3.1 Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates. DISCLOSURE APPENDIX AT THE BACK OF THIS REPORT CONTAINS IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES, ANALYST CERTIFICATIONS, AND THE STATUS OF NON-US ANALYSTS. US Disclosure: Credit Suisse does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be aware that the Firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Investors should consider this report as only a single factor in making their investment decision. CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES RESEARCH & ANALYTICS BEYOND INFORMATION Client-Driven Solutions, Insights, and Access

2 (Continued) Opportunities. Realization of scale economies; plateauing control and compliance costs; normalizing litigation expense; sustained above-average revenue growth through reinvestment to expand the existing banking footprint and consolidation of market share in the investment bank. Estimates/Target Price unchanged. Our 2016/2017 estimates of $5.90/$6.65 per share are unchanged. Base case estimate risk/sensitivity is driven by more or less movement in interest rates (we're assuming one to two 25bps rate hikes in 2016; same in 2017), and the risks of broader/more pronounced credit quality deterioration and persistent capital markets weakness. Our DCF-derived $75 target price implies that JPM shares can trade at 1.2x year end 2016 book value (1.5x TBV), consistent with forecast ROE/ROTE. What to do with the stock. Buy it was no easy year; JPMorgan maneuvered through just fine posting above average revenue growth and returns. Results were all the more impressive coupled with targeted and achieved G-SIB surcharge reductions. Sustained share price outperformance relies on continued above average ROE generation. Upcoming catalysts include JPMorgan Investor Day on February 23 rd we expect Investor Day presentations to reinforce confidence in JPMorgan's aboveaverage sustainable earnings growth and return prospects. Our full analysis of the share price and fundamental downside risk to earnings in a stressed scenario, including an historic look at the credit cycle and bank stock valuations, is detailed in our January 8 th note: Gauging Downside: Taking a Walk to the Darker Side. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) 2

3 Managing Around the Evolving Regulatory Framework We remain very much of the belief that the banking industry is far stronger today thanks in part to the new regulatory framework. And, importantly, even with more liquidity, more capital and less risk, JPMorgan should, with a reasonably constructive macro backdrop, generate its targeted 15% ROTE. Active management around G-SIB surcharge rules, TLAC and FRTB will be required; management's ability and willingness to do so is evidenced in the 100 basis point G-SIB surcharge reduction realized in 2015 far sooner, and 2x greater in magnitude than previously anticipated. Actively Managing Around the Evolving Regulatory Framework: (1) G-SIB surcharge reductions (from 4.5% to 3.5%) are a significant positive; while management has not reduced its target capital ratio, we believe this to be a possibility, once likely changes to CCAR/CCAR minimums are finalized; (2) CCAR changes--- it seems reasonable to assume that all or some of the G-SIB surcharge will, at some point, be included in the CCAR minimums, with possible mitigating factors; (3) FRTB will drive some risk-weighted asset (RWA) inflation; this too can be managed; (4) Basel IV -- too early to know what, if any impact, this might have. G-SIB Surcharge Reduction: from 4.5% to 3.5% With its 4Q15 earnings release, management confirmed that it had reduced its G-SIB surcharge to 3.5%--100bps below the 4.5% surcharge calculated on year end 2014 figures. Our estimate of the drivers of that reduction are detailed in Exhibit 1, including total asset and RWA shrinkage, ~$200Bn in non-operating deposit reductions, a $15Tr+ reduction in OTC derivative notionals, and a more than $15bn reduction in Level 3 assets. Next steps by our estimate, there's a good bit of "distance" to dropping another bucket. Exhibit 1: JPM Updated G-SIB Surcharge in billions, unless otherwise stated G-SIB indicators Final Rule based on FR Y-15 data at December 31, 2014 Systemic G-SIB Coefficient Value Systemic Indicator Score Balance 2015 Reductions Indicator Score as of 4Q15 + Total exposures 4.4% 166 $3,743 -$ Change in total assets Size 4.4% Intra-financial system assets 12.0% 55 $461 -$ Change in total assets x0.5 + Intra-financial system liabilities 12.5% 71 $571 -$ Change in non-operational deposits + Securities outstanding 9.1% 58 $642 -$52 53 Change in AFS securities Interconnectedness 11.0% OTC derivatives notional 0.2% 101 $65,268 -$15, Change in OTC derivatives + Total trading and AFS securities 30.2% 98 $323 -$60 79 Change in trading & AFS securities + Level 3 assets 161.2% 81 $50 -$15 57 Change in Level 3 assets Complexity 0.5% Cross-jurisdictional claims 9.3% 57 $616 -$21 55 Change in foreign debt securities + Cross-jurisdictional liabilities 9.9% 62 $626 -$38 58 Change in foreign deposits Cross-jurisdictional activity 9.6% Short-term wholesale funding % 91 Avg RWA $1,610 -$91 Change in avg adv RWA Implied short-term wholesale funding $495 -$100 Change in non-operational deposits x0.5 Short-term wholesale funding G-SIB score G-SIB surcharge 4.5% 3.5% Score required to lower surcharge Comments Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates. The larger of Standardized and Advanced RWA is used. YTD 2015 OTC derivatives, Trading & AFS securities, Level 3 assets, and avg RWA are as of 4Q15. YTD change in non-operating deposits are as of 4Q15. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) 3

4 Exhibit 2 details G-SIB scores and implied capital surcharges under both the Basel committee and finalized Fed methodologies. Based on year end 2014 data, JPMorgan's capital surcharges stood at the high end of the peer range--with scores disproportionately higher in the Substitutability and Complexity categories. As detailed in Exhibit 1, based on company disclosures and our estimates, there's been a material reduction across each category; management will work to solidify this position (more room to reduce derivative notionals and level 3 assets i.e., more of the same); there needs to be some cushion against a potential increase in trading assets or otherwise (markets willing). Exhibit 2: CS Large Cap Banks G-SIB Scores and Implied Capital Surcharges Based on CS calculations, BIS guidelines, FR Y-15 filings and the Fed's July 16 th memo (see notes below) 2013A 2014E (FX adj'd) Fed's Method 1 Calculation Fed's Method 2 Calculation Score Buffer Score Buffer Score BCBS GSIB Buffer Score Fed Derived GSIB Buffer Bank of America % % % % Citigroup % % % % C 4Q % JPMorgan Chase % % % % JPM 4Q % % % % Goldman Sachs % % % % GS 4Q % % +2.5% Morgan Stanley % % % % Wells Fargo % % % % * 2014E FX adj'd is based on change in $/euro exchange rate and updated numerators; waiting on Basel Committee denominators Fed's method 1 approximates 2014E without the year end 2014 increase due to FX changes (ie., uses year end 2013 Euro/$ rate) Fed's method 1 and 2 scores, as published in Table 1, Calibrating the GSIB surcharge. Implied domestic GSIB buffer is the difference between the method 1 derived BCBS bucket/ GSIB surcharge and the Method 2 calculated buffer estimated by the Fed in its July 16th memo. Source: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, November 2014, regulatory filings, Company data, Credit Suisse estimates Target Capital Level Unchanged at 12% CET1 G-SIB surcharge reductions (from 4.5% to 3.5%) are a significant positive--though management has not reduced its target capital ratio, we believe this to be a possibility, down the road. Reality is there's little to no chance of JPMorgan being approved for a 100% capital payout in the next couple of years such that the bank will continue to accrete considerable amounts of capital. At the same time, CCAR changes--likely inclusion of some or all of the GSIB surcharge in the CCAR minimum will render that (CCAR) to be the bank's binding constraint here too, a source of upward pressure on requisite capital. This being the case, we can understand holding the target at 12% CET 1, despite the G- SIB surcharge reductions. That said, given GSIB surcharge reductions and capital accretion, we think a higher capital payout ratio is quite possible in the 2016 CCAR cycle. Our estimates currently rely on a 58% net payout ratio in calendar 2016 assuming an increase to a 65% net payout in the 2016 CCAR cycle (beginning 2H16); this compares to a 48% net payout ratio in calendar ROTE Sensitivity to Varying Capital Return/Payout Scenarios JPMorgan's ability to generate and sustain a 15% ROTE will depend on both (1) its core earnings power and earnings growth prospects and (2) its ability (read: regulatory approvals) to return excess capital to shareholders. Exhibit 3 is an abbreviated model of JPMorgan's forecast ROE/ROTE under varied capital return scenarios, with a look through to its capital return capacity under varied amended CCAR minimums. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) 4

5 Exhibit 3: JPMorgan--ROE/ROTE Sensitivity to Capital Return Base Case: E 2017E Net income $24,442 $24,027 $26,273 Net to common $22,927 $22,320 $24,493 ROCE 10.6% 9.9% 10.6% ROTCE 13.5% 12.4% 13.2% Share repurchase, net 4,493 6,000 9,800 Capital payout ratio, net 48% 57% 70% CET1, fully phased in 11.6% 12.0% 12.3% Tier 1 Leverage 8.6% 8.7% 9.0% Cushion above CCAR minimum requirement 1 : CET1 (4.5%) 2.3% 2.8% 3.0% CET1 with G-SIB Method 2 (4.5%+3.5%) -1.2% -0.7% -0.5% CET1 with G-SIB Method 1 (4.5%+2.0%) 0.3% 0.8% 1.0% Tier 1 Leverage (4.0%) 1.1% 1.2% 1.5% Capital payout and ROE sensitivity is based on calendar years. CS Base Case 2016 and 2017 estimates translate to CCAR cycle net payout rates of 65-70% and 70-75%, respectively; the 2015 CCAR cycle net payout ratio is expected to average 48% Capital Payout Sensitivity: 65% 75% 85% 2016E Pro forma ROCE 9.9% 10.0% 10.0% 2016E Pro forma ROTCE 12.4% 12.5% 12.6% Pro forma CET1, fully phased in 11.9% 11.8% 11.6% Tier 1 Leverage 8.7% 8.6% 8.5% Cushion above CCAR minimum requirement 1 : CET1 (4.5%) 2.6% 2.5% 2.3% CET1 with G-SIB Method 2 (4.5%+3.5%) -0.9% -1.0% -1.2% CET1 with G-SIB Method 1 (4.5%+2.0%) 0.6% 0.5% 0.3% Tier 1 Leverage (4.0%) 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 2016 Capital Payout Sensitivity: 65% 65% 75% 85% 2017 Capital Payout Sensitivity: 65% 75% 85% 95% 2017E Pro forma ROCE 10.6% 10.6% 10.8% 11.0% 2017E Pro forma ROTCE 13.4% 13.5% 13.7% 14.0% Pro forma CET1, fully phased in 12.3% 12.1% 11.8% 11.5% Tier 1 Leverage 9.0% 8.9% 8.7% 8.5% Cushion above CCAR minimum requirement 1 : CET1 (4.5%) 3.0% 2.8% 2.5% 2.2% CET1 with G-SIB Method 2 (4.5%+3.5%) -0.5% -0.7% -1.0% -1.3% CET1 with G-SIB Method 1 (4.5%+2.0%) 1.0% 0.8% 0.5% 0.2% Tier 1 Leverage (4.0%) 1.5% 1.4% 1.2% 1.0% Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates. Note 1: implied cushion above capital requirement in CCAR assumes results of the DFAST severely adverse scenario equal to the CCAR/DFAST 2015 cycle results. No mitigating factors in DFAST assumed. CCAR Changes New Minimums; Mitigating Factors Most bank management teams, JPMorgan included, believe that some portion of the G-SIB surcharge will, at some point, be added to their CCAR minimums unlikely for 2016; more likely for the 2017 CCAR cycle. That said, there are multiple issues at play here including the starting point minimum, the amount of G-SIB surcharge inclusion, and potential mitigating factors in the DFAST scenarios. What's the "Right" Post Stress Minimum? The Fed has established a minimum CET 1 capital ratio, under CCAR, of 4.5%. Is this the right number? This question is among the primary drivers of the discussion around inclusion of a buffer, i.e., inclusion of some portion of the G-SIB capital surcharge in CCAR JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) 5

6 minimums. Most bank managements, including JPMorgan, seem to be operating under the assumption that all or some of the Fed's Method 2 G-SIB surcharge will be included in the CCAR post-stress minimum. In the case of JPMorgan, there was a clear emphasis on reducing both the Method 1 and Method 2 components of its G-SIB surcharge. Among the better case scenarios, one could consider the possibility that minimums would include only a portion of the Method 2 total; that portion could be the Method 1 surcharge, for a G-SIB. Mitigating Factors Capital Distribution Plans The Fed seems to have some sympathy for a reconsideration of how capital distribution plans are treated in the CCAR/DFAST scenarios. Giving banks "credit" by allowing them to halt the share repurchase component of their capital management plans, post "shock", would obviously alleviate some of the pain/cost of a higher CCAR post-stress minimum. Gauging the Manageability of Higher Minimum Capital Requirements Appendix 2 details current required capital and forecast period end fully phased in Basel III CET 1, through year end Incorporating forecast earnings, capital payouts and the OCI impact of rising interest rates, we expect our banks' CET 1 capital ratios to increase by 160 basis points, on average, by year end Looking at that build relative to 2015 CCAR post-stress minimums (see Exhibit 23), our banks are building capacity to digest a >200bps increase in the post stress minimum capital requirement. While less than ideal (relative to the upside/prospects for higher capital payouts), a higher post-stress minimum capital requirement appears relatively manageable for our banks. Regulatory Update: FRTB With the final standards on the revised framework for market risk i.e. Fundamental Review of Trading Book (FRTB) set on January 14 th (link), one ought to expect an increase manageable here too--in JPMorgan's market risk related RWAs (10% of total RWAs at Sept 30 th ). The increase should be manageable. Exhibit 4 looks at the sensitivity of our banks' capital levels to the 22-40% range of RWA inflation scenario (the median and weighted average impacts suggested in the January report). Exhibit 4: Implications of FRTB* Pro Forma CET1 Impact with Market Risk RWA Inflation 3Q15 CET1 RWA Inflation 40% 22% Pro Forma Pro Forma CET1 vs 3Q15 CET1 vs 3Q15 Goldman Sachs 11.9% 11.2% -73 bps 11.6% -33 bps Morgan Stanley 14.0% 11.8% -220 bps 12.2% -172 bps Bank of America 9.7% 9.4% -32 bps 9.5% -18 bps Citigroup 11.7% 11.4% -31 bps 11.5% -17 bps JPMorgan Chase 11.4% 11.0% -44 bps 11.1% -25 bps Wells Fargo 10.6% 10.7% 7 bps 10.7% 13 bps CS Large Cap Bank Average -66 bps -42 bps CS Large Cap Bank Median -38 bps -21 bps Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates. Notes: Weighted average increase of 40% in market risk capital charges and 22% for the median bank in sample. BAC is pro forma for exit from parallel run on October 1, 2016 and assumes market risk RWA proportionate to that of JPM and C. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) 6

7 1Q92 1Q93 1Q94 1Q95 1Q96 1Q97 1Q98 1Q99 1Q00 1Q01 1Q02 1Q03 1Q04 1Q05 1Q06 1Q07 1Q08 1Q09 1Q10 1Q11 1Q12 1Q13 1Q14 1Q15 1Q92 1Q93 1Q94 1Q95 1Q96 1Q97 1Q98 1Q99 1Q00 1Q01 1Q02 1Q03 1Q04 1Q05 1Q06 1Q07 1Q08 1Q09 1Q10 1Q11 1Q12 1Q13 1Q14 1Q15 Spread to Worst (bps) Loss Rates (%) Spread to Worst (bps) Loss Rates (%) 27 January 2016 Macro, Risks and Contagion There's been no change in management's view that the U.S. economy is "chugging along", albeit it at a slower than perhaps ideal pace. There's also, to date, been no material indication of contagion, i.e., deterioration beyond the energy/commodities sectors. JPMorgan does have multiple data streams/activities through which to monitor this. What's JPMorgan Watching to Gauge Contagion as per management, there remains no material evidence of contagion same comment as on the fourth quarter earnings call management is closely watching consumer discretionary spending, closely monitoring their customers in the commercial bank (especially the more highly levered and those in the industrial/transport sectors), and watching the residential mortgage portfolio in Texas, among other things. In terms of the Fed what's gradual? Historically gradual has implied four rate hikes; the markets are embedding an expectation of one more tightening; going backwards is "highly unlikely". Management expects at least one more move; budgeting is a very dynamic process; JPMorgan doesn't budget based on a bull case scenario. Our estimates embed the benefit of one additional tightening in 2016 (one to two in 2017). What's the high yield market telling us? One must be mindful of high yield spreads as an historically good leading indicator of broader credit quality trends. That said, at present, there's a considerable bifurcation between stress/distressed/energy and the reasonable footing in the BB space. Management won't disregard the indicators; it stands prepared to weather whatever storm comes to pass. Exhibit 5: High Yield Spread vs. CS Large Cap Banks Loss Rate HY Spread to Worst (lhs) CS Large Cap Banks Loss Rates (rhs) 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% Exhibit 6: High Yield Spread vs. Industry C&I Loss Rate 1800 HY Spread to Worst (lhs) 3.0% 1600 Industry C&I Net Charge-offs (rhs) 2.5% % % % % % Source: Company data, FDIC. As of Jan Source: Company data, FDIC. As of Jan A note on JPMorgan's Energy Exposure JPMorgan's energy portfolio represents roughly 2% of total commitments (more detail to come in the 10K; funded exposure of $13.8bn or <2% of total loans at 3Q15), largely concentrated in the E&P subsector; ~60% of this is investment grade. JPMorgan added to its energy-related reserves in each quarter of 2015, bringing total allocated reserves to an estimated 5%+ of its energy exposure. Incremental risk if oil stays at $30pb for 18 months, expect additional reserve build of up to $750mn. We refer to our 4Q15 takeaways note, highlighting credit quality comparisons: Digging into the Differentials-- All Eyes on Credit Quality. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) 7

8 Our Stressed Scenario Our full analysis of the share price and fundamental downside risk to earnings in a stressed scenario, including an historic look at the credit cycle and bank stock valuations, is detailed in our January 8 th note: Gauging Downside: Taking a Walk to the Darker Side. Exhibit 7: CS Large Cap Banks-- Stressed Scenario Impact on TBV BAC C JPM PNC STI USB WFC Avg YE 2015 TBV $15.62 $60.61 $48.13 $63.65 $31.65 $18.05 $28.55 YE 2016E base case TBV 1 $16.77 $65.55 $51.07 $68.58 $33.36 $19.23 $30.12 Less: 5bps less NIM expansion -$0.06 -$0.18 -$0.18 -$0.23 -$0.12 -$0.08 -$0.11 5% trading revenue decline -$0.03 -$0.27 -$0.29 $0.00 Litigation / repositoning charge 2 -$0.06 -$0.23 -$0.17 -$0.29 -$0.28 -$0.09 -$ bps higher loss rates 3 -$0.19 -$0.52 -$0.54 -$0.85 -$0.57 -$0.38 -$0.46 Prior peak C&I losses 4 -$0.40 -$1.27 -$0.83 -$1.99 -$1.23 -$0.43 -$0.41 Prior peak CRE losses 4 -$0.05 -$0.26 -$0.20 -$1.36 -$0.27 -$0.13 -$0.14 Stressed 2016E TBV $15.97 $62.81 $48.87 $63.85 $30.90 $18.12 $28.87 % downside to 2016E TBV -5% -4% -4% -7% -7% -6% -4% -5% % downside to YE 2015 TBV 2% 4% 2% 0% -2% 0% 1% 1% P/TBV 2016E 0.8x 0.6x 1.1x 1.2x 1.0x 2.0x 1.6x 1.2x P/TBV Stressed 2016E 0.8x 0.6x 1.2x 1.3x 1.1x 2.2x 1.7x 1.3x Financial crisis trough 0.4x 0.4x 1.0x 1.0x 0.3x 2.2x 1.4x 1.0x Source: Company data, SNL Financial, Credit Suisse estimates. Note: (1) TBV estimates incorporate OACI impact from higher rates in line with historical performance. (2) Repositioning charges assumed at $1.5bn for BAC, C, JPM, WFC and $200mn for PNC, STI, and USB. (3) Higher loss rates exclude C&I and CRE. Market data as of 1/26/2016. Exhibit 8: CS Large Cap Banks-- Stressed Scenario Impact on EPS BAC C JPM PNC STI USB WFC Avg 2016E base case EPS $1.50 $5.70 $5.90 $7.50 $3.60 $3.35 $4.30 Less: 5bps less NIM expansion -$0.06 -$0.18 -$0.18 -$0.23 -$0.12 -$0.08 -$0.11 5% trading revenue decline -$0.03 -$0.27 -$0.29 $0.00 Litigation / repositoning charge 1 -$0.06 -$0.23 -$0.17 -$0.29 -$0.28 -$0.09 -$ bps higher loss rates 2 -$0.19 -$0.52 -$0.54 -$0.85 -$0.57 -$0.38 -$0.46 Prior peak C&I losses 3 -$0.40 -$1.27 -$0.83 -$1.99 -$1.23 -$0.43 -$0.41 Prior peak CRE losses 3 -$0.05 -$0.26 -$0.20 -$1.36 -$0.27 -$0.13 -$0.14 Stressed 2016E EPS $0.71 $2.96 $3.70 $2.77 $1.13 $2.24 $3.04 % downside to 2016E EPS -53% -48% -37% -63% -69% -33% -29% -47% Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates. Note: (1) Reposition charge assumed at $1.5bn for BAC, C, JPM, WFC and $200mn for PNC, STI, and USB. (2) Higher loss rates exclude C&I and CRE. (3) Prior peak is based on the top four quarters with the highest losses through the financial crisis. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) 8

9 Other Interesting Takeaways Opportunities for JPMorgan include: realization of scale economies; plateauing control and compliance costs; normalizing litigation expense; sustained above-average revenue growth through reinvestment to expand the existing banking footprint and consolidation of market share in the investment bank. Control and Compliance Costs. As anticipated, these expenses appear to have peaked and plateaued with opportunities to become more efficient and more effective in phase 2 processes are seasoning, some can be automated--all with the intent to stay best in class. Headwinds include the increase in cyber-risk related spending. Legal costs hopefully declining; note the anticipated >$1bn decline in reasonably possible losses at year end 2015; management is confident/hopeful that more of this spending is behind them than in front at this point. In 2015 firm-wide legal expense ran at $3bn; for 2016 and beyond it seems fair to assume some normalization ($1-2bn annually, in time). See Exhibit Pricing Power and Market Share Opportunities in the Investment Bank some of both to be realized. It will likely be easier to see more material market share gains when trading activity rebounds in fixed income in particular, where competitor retrenchment has been most evident. That said, for JPMorgan, with its consistent investment, market share gains have been broadly evident across trading and investment banking. In terms of pricing pricing improvement has been most evident in the repo and prime brokerage businesses; less so in segments like traditional/high grade credit where clients still have multiple choices. JPMorgan is committed to running a scaled, client focused and global franchise delivering adequate returns; 13% ROE in the CIB in 2015 more on an adjusted basis, and improving with expense management and the declining cost of legacy positions. Economies of Scale there are very real opportunities. Compliance and shared infrastructure across the businesses are a huge scale advantage for JPMorgan. Management believes (and we see it in the numbers and market share moves) that 2015 delivered incremental verification of this with competitors finally retrenching-- the burden of these infrastructure costs being too much to bear. JPMorgan's articulated target efficiency ratio is mid-50% in the near/medium term (Consistent, for now, with the last discussed target; JPMorgan reported a 61% efficiency ratio in 2015; our base case 2016/2017 forecasts rely on improvement to ~57% and ~56% respectively.) Exhibit 9: Large Cap Banks Efficiency History and Forecast 80% 75% 70% Avg Operating Efficiency Ratio Avg Reported Efficiency Ratio Exhibit 10: Efficiency Ratio Comparison First Signs of Scale Economies 80% 75% 70% 65% '15: 63.9% 65% 60% 55% '15: 60.7% '16E: 60.6% 60% 55% Small Banks Mid Size Banks 50% % Large Banks Median (Large Banks) Source: Company data, SNL Financial Data, CS estimates. Source: Company data, SNL Financial Data, CS estimates JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) 9

10 Control, Compliance and Legal Expense: Past the Peak Hopefully Exhibit 11: Range of Reasonably Possible Losses in millions, unless otherwise stated as of Year End: 3Q15/ Q15 2Q15 Goldman Sachs $3,400 $2,400 $3,500 $3,600 $3,000 $5,300-10% Morgan Stanley NM NM NM NM NM NM - Bank of America $1,500 $3,600 $3,100 $6,100 $2,700 $2,400 4% Citigroup $4,000 $4,000 $5,000 $5,000 $4,000 $4,000 0% JPMorgan Chase $4,500 $5,100 $6,100 $5,000 $5,800 $5,000-9% PNC Financial $400 $550 $450 $800 $650 $725 0% SunTrust $150 $250 $300 $300 $180 $160-6% U.S. Bancorp NM NM NM NM NM NM - Wells Fargo $1,200 $1,200 $1,000 $951 $1,100 $1,400 0% CS Large Cap Bank Median 0% CS Large Cap Bank Average -3% Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates Exhibit 12: Legal Expense History in billions, based on annual reports $12 $11.1 $10 $8 $7.4 $6 $4.9 $5.0 $4 $2.9 $3.0 $2 $0.2 $0 -$2 -$0.8 -$ Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) 10

11 Jan-00 Jan-02 Jan-04 Jan-06 Jan-08 Jan-10 Jan-12 Jan-14 Current Jan-00 Jan-02 Jan-04 Jan-06 Jan-08 Jan-10 Jan-12 Jan-14 Current Jan-00 Jan-02 Jan-04 Jan-06 Jan-08 Jan-10 Jan-12 Jan-14 Current 27 January 2016 Valuation and Target Price We value our banks based on both a DCF and a Price/Book value basis. Our DCF-derived target price for JPM shares, using an 11% discount rate and a 4% terminal growth rate, is $75. That target price translates to 1.2x forecast year-end 2016 book value and 1.5x tangible book value, both below historical averages, and consistent with its above-average forecast ROTCE of 12-14%. Exhibit 13: JPM Historical Price/Book Value 5.0 x JPM 4.0 x CS Large Cap Banks 3.0 x Exhibit 14: JPM Historical Price/Tangible Book Value 5.0 x 4.4x JPM 4.0 x CS Large Cap Banks 3.0 x 2.0 x 2.0 x 1.7x 1.0 x 1.2x 0.9x 1.0 x 1.1x 1.0x 1.2x 0.0 x 0.0 x Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates. As of Jan 2016 Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates. As of Jan 2016 Exhibit 15: JPM 12-Month-Forward P/E History 30x 20x 10x 0x JPM CS Large Cap Banks 11.9x 9.4x Exhibit 16: JPM Dividend Yield History Annualized quarterly dividend as a % of stock price 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% JPM CS Large Cap Banks 3.20% 0% 1Q90 1Q93 1Q96 1Q99 1Q02 1Q05 1Q08 1Q11 1Q14 Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates. As of Jan 2016 Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates. As of Jan % Exhibit 17: Price/Tangible Book Value vs. 2016E ROTE 2.65x Exhibit 18: Price/Tangible Book Value vs. 2017E ROTE 2.65x 1.90x USB WFC PNC 1.15x STI MS GS JPM C BAC 0.40x 7.0% 9.5% 12.0% 14.5% 17.0% 19.5% Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates 1.90x USB WFC PNC 1.15x STI MS JPM GS C BAC 0.40x 7.0% 9.5% 12.0% 14.5% 17.0% 19.5% Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) 11

12 Appendix 1: Drivers of JPM's G-SIB Score Reduction Progress in G-SIB score optimization was clearly evident in JPMorgan's 2015 results 7.4% year/year reduction in the absolute dollar amount of risk weighted assets (RWA) and >$200bn reduction in non-operating deposits; more than 24% ($15tr) reduction in the notional value of its derivatives book and more than 30% ($15bn+) decline in Level 3 assets. See Exhibits JPM's Notional Value of Derivatives Down 24%+ in 2015 Exhibit 19: CS Large Cap Banks--Notional Value of Derivatives Comparison Year End (Regulatory Filings) 2013/ 2014/ Quarter End (GAAP) 3Q15/ 2015/ Q14 2Q15 3Q15 4Q15 2Q15 YE2014 Goldman Sachs $41,152 $50,355 $53,479 22% 6% $57,511 $53,306 $51, % -11% Morgan Stanley $44,279 $43,611 $34,516-2% -21% $19,389 $17,025 $16, % -17% Bank of America $59,144 $54,887 $52,034-7% -5% $54,558 $46,156 $45, % -16% Citigroup $50,930 $59,472 $54,952 17% -8% $59,016 $55,202 $52,441 $46,623-5% -21% JPMorgan Chase* $65,548 $68,004 $65,268 4% -4% $63,662 $53,708 $52,018 $48,362-3% -24% PNC Financial NA $252 $ % $340 $372 $ % 8% SunTrust Banks NA $183 $ % $118 $134 $ % 19% U.S. Bancorp NA $106 $ % $141 $179 $ % 34% Wells Fargo $3,836 $4,880 $5,643 27% 16% $5,307 $6,053 $6, % 15% CS Large Cap Bank Median 10% 6% -1% -11% Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates. Year-end figures are sourced from the FR Y-15 (this data is what feeds in to the Basel Committee calculations of GSIB scores); quarterly updates are sourced from the 10Qs and reported on a GAAP basis. Note that regulatory accounting varies from GAAP accounting leading to near, but imperfect comparability of year end and quarterly figures. *JPM 4Q15 notional value of derivatives estimated based on 4Q15 earnings presentation: "reduction of OTC derivative notionals of $15T+". C 4Q15 notional value of derivatives estimated based on 4Q15 earnings call. YTD 2015/2014 change for JPM and C based on estimated 4Q15 notional value of derivatives, others based on 3Q15 actual. YTD JPM's Level 3 Assets Down 27% in '14 and Down an Additional 30%+ in 2015 Exhibit 20: CS Large Cap Banks Level 3 Assets Trends Level 3 Assets 2013/ 2014/ 3Q15/ Q14 4Q14 1Q15 2Q15 3Q15 4Q Q15 Goldman Sachs $47.1 $40.0 $35.8 $41.0 $35.8 $34.3 $32.4 $ % -11% -16% Morgan Stanley $20.4 $18.4 $13.3 $19.9 $13.3 $16.5 $12.7 $ % -28% -5% Bank of America $36.6 $31.8 $22.3 $23.3 $22.3 $21.6 $21.3 $ % -30% -9% Citigroup $49.3 $45.7 $42.4 $42.4 $41.3 $42.6 $36.4 $33.8 $32.6-7% -7% -7% JPMorgan Chase* $98.1 $69.3 $50.9 $61.8 $50.5 $46.0 $40.6 $34.9 $ % -27% -14% PNC Financial $11.0 $10.7 $10.3 $10.8 $10.3 $10.1 $9.7 $9.4-3% -4% -3% SunTrust Banks $2.4 $2.6 $2.5 $2.6 $2.5 $2.3 $2.4 $2.1 10% -7% -11% U.S. Bancorp $3.9 $4.0 $3.8 $3.8 $3.8 $3.8 $3.8 $3.9 3% -7% 3% Wells Fargo $51.9 $37.2 $32.3 $33.5 $32.3 $30.4 $27.9 $ % -13% 2% CS Large Cap Bank Median -10% -11% -7% Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates. *JPM 4Q15 level 3 asset estimated based on earnings supplement: "decrease in level 3 assets of more than $15B since 4Q14". C 4Q15 level 3 asset estimated based on 4Q15 earnings call JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) 12

13 Exhibit 21: CS Large Cap Banks--- Risk Weighted Asset (RWA) Progression US$ in billions, unless otherwise stated, Fully Phased-In Advanced Approaches RWA 4Q15/ 4Q15/ 4Q14 1Q15 2Q15 3Q15 4Q15 3Q15 4Q14 Goldman Sachs $578 $575 $583 $580 $ % 0.0% Morgan Stanley $456 $439 $418 $423 $ % -15.6% Bank of America $1,466 $1,461 $1,427 $1,570 $1, % 7.4% Citigroup $1,293 $1,284 $1,279 $1,254 $1, % -5.3% JPMorgan Chase $1,619 $1,573 $1,532 $1,513 $1, % -7.4% Wells Fargo -- $1,326 $1,318 $1,312 $1, % --- CS Large Cap Bank Average -1.8% -4.2% CS Large Cap Bank Median -0.7% -5.3% Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates. Bank of America RWA is pro forma fully-phased Basel 3 Advance approaches post exit from parallel run starting 3Q15 onwards. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) 13

14 Appendix 2: Capital Accretion; Manageability of a Higher CCAR Minimum Exhibit 22: CS Large Cap Banks--Minimum Capital Requirements and Forecast Capital Levels Capital BCBS Fed Fed 2015 Conser- BCBS Min Domestic Min Mgmt. Min vation GSIB Required GSIB Required Stated Capital + Buffer + Buffer = Capital Buffer Capital Target E 2017E Goldman Sachs 4.5% 2.5% 1.5% 8.5% 2.5% 9.5% 10.5% 12.9% 13.0% 13.6% Morgan Stanley 4.5% 2.5% 1.0% 8.0% 3.0% 10.0% 14.1% 13.2% 13.6% Bank of America 4.5% 2.5% 1.5% 8.5% 3.0% 10.0% % 9.8% 10.7% 10.9% Citigroup 4.5% 2.5% 2.0% 9.0% 3.0% 10.0% 11.0% 12.0% 12.7% 13.2% JPMorgan Chase 4.5% 2.5% 2.0% 9.0% 3.5% 10.5% 12.0% 11.6% 12.0% 12.3% PNC Financial 4.5% 2.5% 0.0% 7.0% 0.0% 7.0% 10.0% 10.3% 10.8% SunTrust Banks 4.5% 2.5% 0.0% 7.0% 0.0% 7.0% 9.7% 9.5% 9.2% U.S. Bancorp 4.5% 2.5% 0.0% 7.0% 0.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.1% 9.2% 9.2% Wells Fargo 4.5% 2.5% 1.0% 8.0% 2.0% 9.0% 10.0%+ 10.7% 10.4% 10.3% CS Large Cap Banks Average 11.1% 11.2% 11.5% CS Large Cap Banks Median 10.7% 10.7% 10.9% Source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates. Note: The 2015 CET1 ratios are the lower of the standardized and advanced approach, for each individual bank.gs target is based stated target of 1.0% above regulatory minimum. JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs domestic G-SIB surcharge is pro-forma for 2015 balance sheet optimization initiatives. Exhibit 23: CS Large Cap Banks -- Gauging the Manageability of a Higher Minimum Capital Requirement in CCAR Fully phasedin Basel III, 3Q CCAR - Stress scenario CET1 ratios Stress scenario CET1 impact 1 Severely adverse scenario Stress scenario minimum Cushion above 4½% minimum CET1 build since 3Q14 Implied cushion above CCAR CET1 minimum requirement 4Q E 2017E 3Q E 2017E Goldman Sachs 10.0% -4.6% 5.4% 0.9% +2.9% +3.8% +5.4% 3.8% 4.7% 6.3% 2.5% Morgan Stanley 12.7% -6.8% 5.9% 1.4% 1.4% +0.5% +0.9% 2.7% 1.8% 2.3% 3.0% Bank of America 2 8.3% -1.7% 6.6% 2.1% +1.5% +2.4% +2.6% 3.5% 4.4% 4.6% 3.0% Citigroup 10.7% -4.3% 6.4% 1.9% +1.3% +2.2% +2.8% 3.1% 4.1% 4.7% 3.0% JPMorgan Chase % -4.8% 5.3% 0.8% +1.4% +2.0% +2.4% 2.2% 2.7% 3.1% 3.5% PNC Financial 10.1% -3.1% 7.0% 2.5% -0.1% -0.1% +0.1% 2.3% 2.3% 2.5% SunTrust Banks 9.7% -2.5% 7.2% 2.7% +0.2% -0.2% -0.5% 2.8% 2.4% 2.2% U.S. Bancorp 9.0% -2.2% 6.8% 2.3% +0.1% +0.2% +0.3% 2.4% 2.5% 2.6% Wells Fargo 10.5% -5.0% 5.5% 1.0% +0.2% 0.0% -0.1% 1.2% 1.0% 0.9% 2.0% Average 10.1% -3.9% 6.2% 1.7% +1.0% +1.2% +1.6% 2.7% 2.9% 3.2% 2.8% Median 10.1% -4.3% 6.4% 1.9% +1.3% +0.5% +0.9% 2.7% 2.5% 2.6% 3.0% Note: 1 Capital impact is based on difference in fully phased-in Basel III capital ratios. 2 Bank of America CET1 capital ratios are pro-forma for exit from parallel run. 3 JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs domestic G-SIB surcharge is pro-forma for 2015 balance sheet optimization initiatives. Domestic G-SIB surcharge Source: Company data, SNL Financial, Credit Suisse estimates JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) 14

15 Companies Mentioned (Price as of 26-Jan-2016) Bank of America Corp. (BAC.N, $13.31) Citigroup Inc. (C.N, $40.5) Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS.N, $154.45) JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM.N, $57.08, OUTPERFORM, TP $75.0) Morgan Stanley (MS.N, $25.49) PNC Financial Services Group (PNC.N, $84.45) SunTrust Banks Inc. (STI.N, $35.02) U.S. Bancorp (USB.N, $39.02) Wells Fargo & Company (WFC.N, $48.26) Important Global Disclosures Disclosure Appendix I, Susan Roth Katzke, certify that (1) the views expressed in this report accurately reflect my personal views about all of the subject companies and securities and (2) no part of my compensation was, is or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendations or views expressed in this report. 3-Year Price and Rating History for JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM.N) JPM.N Closing Price Target Price Date (US$) (US$) Rating 26-Feb O 12-Jul Jan Sep NR 07-Jan O * * Asterisk signifies initiation or assumption of coverage. O U T PERFO RM N O T RA T ED The analyst(s) responsible for preparing this research report received Compensation that is based upon various factors including Credit Suisse's total revenues, a portion of which are generated by Credit Suisse's investment banking activities As of December 10, 2012 Analysts stock rating are defined as follows: Outperform (O) : The stock s total return is expected to outperform the relevant benchmark* over the next 12 months. Neutral (N) : The stock s total return is expected to be in line with the relevant benchmark* over the next 12 months. Underperform (U) : The stock s total return is expected to underperform the relevant benchmark* over the next 12 months. *Relevant benchmark by region: As of 10th December 2012, Japanese ratings are based on a sto ck s total return relative to the analyst's coverage universe which consists of all companies covered by the analyst within the relevant sector, with Outperforms representing the most attractiv e, Neutrals the less attractive, and Underperforms the least attractive investment opportunities. As of 2nd October 2012, U.S. and Canadian as well as European ratings are based on a stock s total return relative to the analyst's coverage universe which consists of all companies covered by the analyst within the relev ant sector, with Outperforms representing the most attractive, Neutrals the less attractive, and Underperforms the least attractive investment opportunities. For Latin Ame rican and non-japan Asia stocks, ratings are based on a stock s total return relative to the average total return of the relevant country or regional benchmark; prior to 2nd October 2012 U.S. and Canadian ratings were based on (1) a stock s absolute total return potential to its current share price and (2) the relative attractiv eness of a stock s total return potential within an analyst s coverage universe. For Australian and New Zealand stocks, the expected total return (ETR) calculation includes 1 2-month rolling dividend yield. An Outperform rating is assigned where an ETR is greater than or equal to 7.5%; Underperform where an ETR less than or equal to 5%. A Neutral may be assigned where the ETR is between -5% and 15%. The overlapping rating range allows analysts to assign a rating that puts ETR in the context of associated risks. Prior to 18 May 2015, ETR ranges for Outperform and Underperform ratings did not overlap with Neutral thresholds between 15% and 7.5%, wh ich was in operation from 7 July Restricted (R) : In certain circumstances, Credit Suisse policy and/or applicable law and regulations preclude certain types of communications, including an investment recommendation, during the course of Credit Suisse's engagement in an investment banking transaction and in certain other circumstances. Volatility Indicator [V] : A stock is defined as volatile if the stock price has moved up or down by 20% or more in a month in at least 8 of the past 24 months or the analyst expects significant volatility going forward. Analysts sector weightings are distinct from analysts stock ratings and are based on the analyst s expectations for the fundamentals and/or valuation of the sector* relative to the group s historic fundamentals and/or valuation: Overweight : The analyst s expectation for the sector s fundamentals and/or valuation is favorable over the next 12 months. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) 15

16 Market Weight : The analyst s expectation for the sector s fundamentals and/or valuation is neutral over the next 12 months. Underweight : The analyst s expectation for the sector s fundamentals and/or valuation is cautious over the next 12 months. *An analyst s coverage sector consists of all companies covered by the analyst within the relevant sector. An analyst may cov er multiple sectors. Credit Suisse's distribution of stock ratings (and banking clients) is: Global Ratings Distribution Rating Versus universe (%) Of which banking clients (%) Outperform/Buy* 56% (36% banking clients) Neutral/Hold* 31% (29% banking clients) Underperform/Sell* 12% (42% banking clients) Restricted 1% *For purposes of the NYSE and NASD ratings distribution disclosure requirements, our stock ratings of Outperform, Neutral, and Underperform most closely correspond to Buy, Hold, and Sell, respectively; however, the meanings are not the same, as our stock ratings are determined on a relative basis. (Please refer to definitions above.) An investor's decision to buy or sell a security should be based on investment objectives, current holdin gs, and other individual factors. Credit Suisse s policy is to update research reports as it deems appropriate, based on developments with the subject company, the sector or the market that may have a material impact on the research views or opinions stated herein. Credit Suisse's policy is only to publish investment research that is impartial, independent, clear, fair and not misleading. For more detail please refer to Credit Suisse's Policies for Managing Conflicts of Interest in connection with Investment Research: Credit Suisse does not provide any tax advice. Any statement herein regarding any US federal tax is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purposes of avoiding any penalties. Target Price and Rating Valuation Methodology and Risks: (12 months) for JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM.N) Method: We arrive at our $75 target price for JPM using a discounted cash flow analysis. We assume an 11% cost of capital and a 3% terminal growth rate in our analysis; near term target CET 1 fully phased in capital levels impact free cash flow analysis. A $75 valuation for JPM implies an estimated price to forecast year end 2015 book value of 1.2x in 2015, which we believe to be reasonable given our forecast ROEs both absolute and relative to peers. Valuation and total return potential drive our Outperform rating. Beyond valuation and implied total return, additional qualitative factors supporting confidence in the assumptions underlying our valuation and Outperform rating include balance sheet optimization progress and prospects, above-average organic revenue growth, operating leverage, and above-average returns. Risk: Primary risks to our $75 target price and Outperform rating include macroeconomic risk, increasing regulatory pressure, litigation and related costs, and cybersecurity. Additional risks specific to JPM include competing with a higher GSIB capital surcharge, a forced reduction in complexity, and management succession. Please refer to the firm's disclosure website at for the definitions of abbreviations typically used in the target price method and risk sections. See the Companies Mentioned section for full company names The subject company (JPM.N, BAC.N, C.N, WFC.N, STI.N, PNC.N, USB.N, MS.N, GS.N) currently is, or was during the 12-month period preceding the date of distribution of this report, a client of Credit Suisse. Credit Suisse provided investment banking services to the subject company (JPM.N, C.N, WFC.N, STI.N, PNC.N, USB.N, MS.N, GS.N) within the past 12 months. Credit Suisse provided non-investment banking services to the subject company (JPM.N, BAC.N, C.N, WFC.N, STI.N, USB.N, MS.N, GS.N) within the past 12 months Credit Suisse has managed or co-managed a public offering of securities for the subject company (JPM.N, C.N, WFC.N, STI.N, PNC.N, MS.N) within the past 12 months. Credit Suisse has received investment banking related compensation from the subject company (JPM.N, C.N, WFC.N, STI.N, PNC.N, USB.N, MS.N, GS.N) within the past 12 months Credit Suisse expects to receive or intends to seek investment banking related compensation from the subject company (JPM.N, BAC.N, C.N, WFC.N, STI.N, PNC.N, USB.N, MS.N, GS.N) within the next 3 months. Credit Suisse has received compensation for products and services other than investment banking services from the subject company (JPM.N, BAC.N, C.N, WFC.N, STI.N, USB.N, MS.N, GS.N) within the past 12 months JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) 16

17 As of the date of this report, Credit Suisse makes a market in the following subject companies (JPM.N, BAC.N, C.N, WFC.N, STI.N, PNC.N, USB.N, MS.N, GS.N). Credit Suisse has a material conflict of interest with the subject company (C.N). Credit Suisse is acting as a financial advisor for Springleaf in relation to the acquisition of OneMain Financial from CitiFinancial Credit Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Citigroup. Credit Suisse has a material conflict of interest with the subject company (WFC.N). Credit Suisse is acting as a financial advisor to General Electric Co. (GE) in relation to their potential sale of GE Capital s Commercial Distribution Finance, North American Vendor Finance and Corporate Finance platforms to Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC). As of the date of this report, an analyst involved in the preparation of this report has the following material conflict of interest with the subject company (JPM.N). As of the date of this report, an analyst involved in the preparation of this report, Susan Katzke, has following material conflicts of interest with the subject company. The analyst or a member of the analyst's household has a long position in the common and preferred stock JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM). As of the date of this report, an analyst involved in the preparation of this report has the following material conflict of interest with the subject company (BAC.N). As of the date of this report, an analyst involved in the preparation of this report, Susan Katzke, has following material conflicts of interest with the subject company. The analyst or a member of the analyst's household has a long position in the preferred stock Bank of America Corp (BAC). As of the date of this report, an analyst involved in the preparation of this report has the following material conflict of interest with the subject company (C.N). As of the date of this report, an analyst involved in the preparation of this report, Susan Katzke, has following material conflicts of interest with the subject company. The analyst or a member of the analyst's household has a long position in the common and preferred stock Citigroup (C). As of the date of this report, an analyst involved in the preparation of this report has the following material conflict of interest with the subject company (WFC.N). As of the date of this report, an analyst involved in the preparation of this report, Susan Katzke, has following material conflicts of interest with the subject company. The analyst or a member of the analyst's household has a long position in the preferred stock Wells Fargo & Company (WFC). As of the date of this report, an analyst involved in the preparation of this report has the following material conflict of interest with the subject company (PNC.N). As of the date of this report, an analyst involved in the preparation of this report, Susan Katzke, has following material conflicts of interest with the subject company. The analyst or a member of the analyst's household has a long position in the preferred stock PNC Financial Services Group (PNC). For other important disclosures concerning companies featured in this report, including price charts, please visit the website at or call +1 (877) Important Regional Disclosures Singapore recipients should contact Credit Suisse AG, Singapore Branch for any matters arising from this research report. The analyst(s) involved in the preparation of this report may participate in events hosted by the subject company, including site visits. Credit Suisse does not accept or permit analysts to accept payment or reimbursement for travel expenses associated with these events. Restrictions on certain Canadian securities are indicated by the following abbreviations: NVS--Non-Voting shares; RVS--Restricted Voting Shares; SVS--Subordinate Voting Shares. Individuals receiving this report from a Canadian investment dealer that is not affiliated with Credit Suisse should be advised that this report may not contain regulatory disclosures the non-affiliated Canadian investment dealer would be required to make if this were its own report. For Credit Suisse Securities (Canada), Inc.'s policies and procedures regarding the dissemination of equity research, please visit Credit Suisse has acted as lead manager or syndicate member in a public offering of securities for the subject company (JPM.N, BAC.N, C.N, WFC.N, STI.N, PNC.N, MS.N, GS.N) within the past 3 years. As of the date of this report, Credit Suisse acts as a market maker or liquidity provider in the equities securities that are the subject of this report. Principal is not guaranteed in the case of equities because equity prices are variable. Commission is the commission rate or the amount agreed with a customer when setting up an account or at any time after that. For Credit Suisse disclosure information on other companies mentioned in this report, please visit the website at or call +1 (877) JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) 17