UNITED STATESSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20549
FORM 10-Q
QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d)OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code (212) 270-6000
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.
Yes [X] No [ ]
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock on April 30, 2004.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Management’s Discussion and Analysis included in this Form 10-Q contains statements that are forward-looking within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements are based upon the current beliefs and expectations of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.’s management and are subject to significant risks and uncertainties. These risks and uncertainties could cause J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.’s results to differ materially from those set forth in such forward-looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties are described herein and in J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year-ended December 31, 2003, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and available at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s internet site (www.sec.gov), to which reference is hereby made.
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. has filed a Registration Statement on Form S-4 with the SEC containing the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus regarding the proposed merger between J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Bank One Corporation. Stockholders are urged to read the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus because it contains important information. Stockholders may obtain a free copy of the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus, as well as other filings containing information about J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Bank One Corporation, without charge, at the SEC’s Internet site (http://www.sec.gov). Copies of the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus and the filings with the SEC incorporated by reference in the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus can also be obtained, without charge, by directing a request to J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 270 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017, Attention: Office of the Secretary (212-270-4040), or to Bank One Corporation, 1 Bank One Plaza, Suite 0738, Chicago, Illinois 60670, Attention: Investor Relations (312-336-3013). The respective directors and executive officers of JPMorgan Chase and Bank One and other persons may be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies in respect of the proposed merger. Information regarding JP Morgan Chase’s and Bank One’s directors and executive officers and a description of their direct and indirect interests, by security holdings or otherwise, is available in the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus contained in the above-referenced Registration Statement on Form S-4.
2
Part IItem 1
J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO.CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME (UNAUDITED)(in millions, except per share data)
The Notes to consolidated financial statements (unaudited) are an integral part of these statements.
3
Part IItem 1 (continued)
J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO.CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (UNAUDITED)(in millions, except share data)
4
J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO.CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY (UNAUDITED)(in millions, except per share data)
5
J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO.CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (UNAUDITED)(in millions)
6
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited)
NOTE 1 – BASIS OF PRESENTATION
NOTE 2 – BUSINESS CHANGES AND DEVELOPMENTS
The merger, which is expected to be completed by mid-2004, is subject to approval by the stockholders of both institutions as well as U.S. federal and state and non-U.S. regulatory authorities. JPMorgan Chase and Bank One have scheduled their stockholder meetings on May 25, 2004 to vote on the proposed merger. For further information, see the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by JPMorgan Chase with the Securities and Exchange Commission, containing the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus regarding the proposed merger.
NOTE 3 – TRADING ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
7
NOTE 4 – INTEREST INCOME AND INTEREST EXPENSE
8
NOTE 5 – POSTRETIREMENT EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS
The following table presents the components of net periodic benefit costs reported in the Consolidated statement of income for the Firm’s U.S. and non-U.S. defined benefit pension and postretirement benefit plans:
JPMorgan Chase made a cash contribution of $1.1 billion to its U.S. defined benefit pension plan on April 1, 2004, funding it to the maximum allowable amount under applicable tax law. This contribution is expected to reduce U.S. pension and other postretirement benefit expenses by approximately $64 million over the remaining nine months of 2004.
NOTE 6 – EMPLOYEE INCENTIVES
Employee pre-tax stock-based Compensation expense recognized in reported earnings totaled $297 million and $249 million for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The higher expense for the three months ended March 31, 2004, resulted from employee stock-based awards granted in 2004, including stock options and stock appreciation rights settled in stock, that are accounted for under SFAS 123, partially offset by the vesting of prior-year restricted stock awards and forfeitures.
The following table presents Net income and basic and diluted earnings per share as reported, and as if all outstanding awards were accounted for at fair value in each period. The lower expense from applying SFAS 123 in the three months ended March 31, 2004, compared with the three months ended March 31, 2003 resulted from the vesting of stock option awards in 2003 that were granted prior to the adoption of SFAS 123 as of January 1, 2003.
9
Deferred compensation plan
NOTE 7 – SECURITIES
The amortized cost and estimated fair value of AFS and HTM securities were as follows for the dates indicated:
NOTE 8 – SECURITIES FINANCING ACTIVITIES
10
Transactions similar to financing activities that do not meet the SFAS 140 definition of a repurchase agreement are accounted for as “buys” and “sells” rather than financing transactions. Notional amounts of transactions accounted for as purchases under SFAS 140 were $13 billion and $15 billion at March 31, 2004, and December 31, 2003, respectively. Notional amounts of transactions accounted for as sales under SFAS 140 were $7 billion and $8 billion at March 31, 2004, and December 31, 2003, respectively.
JPMorgan Chase pledges certain financial instruments it owns to collateralize repurchase agreements and other securities financings. Pledged securities that can be sold or repledged by the secured party are identified as financial instruments owned (pledged to various parties) on the Consolidated balance sheet. At March 31, 2004, the Firm had received securities as collateral that can be repledged, delivered or otherwise used with a fair value of approximately $208 billion. This collateral was generally obtained under resale or securities borrowing agreements. Of these securities, approximately $196 billion were repledged, delivered or otherwise used, generally as collateral under repurchase agreements, securities lending agreements or to cover short sales.
NOTE 9 – LOANS
The composition of the loan portfolio at each of the dates indicated was as follows:
NOTE 10 – ALLOWANCE FOR CREDIT LOSSES
The table below summarizes the changes in the Allowance for Loan Losses:
11
The table below summarizes the changes in the Allowance for lending-related commitments:
NOTE 11 – LOAN SECURITIZATIONS
The following table summarizes new securitization transactions that were completed during each of the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003; the resulting gains arising from such securitizations; certain cash flows received from such securitizations; and the key economic assumptions used in measuring the retained interests, as of the dates of such sales:
In addition, the Firm sold residential mortgage loans totaling $18 billion and $23 billion during the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively, primarily as GNMA, FNMA and Freddie Mac mortgage-backed securities; these sales resulted in pre-tax gains of $49 million and $227 million, respectively.
At both March 31, 2004, and December 31, 2003, the Firm had, with respect to its credit card master trusts, $7.3 billion related to its undivided interest, and $1.0 billion and $1.1 billion, respectively, related to its subordinated interest in accrued interest and fees on the securitized receivables. Credit card securitization trusts require the Firm to maintain a minimum undivided interest of 7% of the
12
average principal receivables in the trusts. The Firm maintained an average undivided interest in its credit card securitization trusts of approximately 18% and 17% for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and twelve months ended December 31, 2003, respectively.
The Firm also maintains escrow accounts up to predetermined limits for some of its credit card and automobile securitizations, in the unlikely event of deficiencies in cash flows owed to investors. The amounts available in such escrow accounts are recorded in Other assets and, as of March 31, 2004, amounted to $447 million and $159 million for credit card and automobile securitizations, respectively; as of December 31, 2003, these amounts were $456 million and $137 million for credit card and automobile securitizations, respectively.
The table below summarizes other retained securitization interests, which are primarily subordinated or residual interests and are carried at fair value on the Firm’s Consolidated balance sheets:
The table below outlines the key economic assumptions used to determine the fair value of the remaining retained interests at March 31, 2004, and December 31, 2003, respectively; and the sensitivities to those fair values to immediate 10% and 20% adverse changes in those assumptions:
13
The sensitivity analysis in the preceding table is hypothetical. Changes in fair value based on a 10% or 20% variation in assumptions generally cannot be extrapolated easily, because the relationship of the change in the assumptions to the change in fair value may not be linear. Also, in this table, the effect that a change in a particular assumption may have on the fair value is calculated without changing any other assumption. In reality, changes in one factor may result in changes in another assumption, which might counteract or magnify the sensitivities.
The table below presents information about delinquencies, net credit losses and components of reported and securitized financial assets at March 31, 2004, and December 31, 2003:
NOTE 12 – VARIABLE INTEREST ENTITIESRefer to Note 1 on pages 86-87 and Note 14 on pages 103-106 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2003 Annual Report for a further description of JPMorgan Chase’s involvement with variable interest entities (“VIEs”) and the Firm’s policy on consolidation relating to these entities.
In December 2003, the FASB issued a revision to FIN 46 (“FIN 46R”) to address various technical corrections and implementation issues that have arisen since the issuance of FIN 46. Effective March 31, 2004, JPMorgan Chase implemented FIN 46R for all VIEs, excluding certain investments made by its private equity business. The FASB permitted nonregistered investment companies, such as JPMP, to defer consolidation of VIEs with which they are involved until the proposed Statement of Position on the clarification of the scope of the Investment Company Audit Guide is finalized. Following issuance of the Statement of Position, the FASB indicated it would consider further modification to FIN 46R, to provide an exception for companies that qualify to apply the revised Audit Guide. The Firm applied this deferral provision and did not consolidate $2.6 billion of additional assets in potential VIEs with which JPMP is involved as of March 31, 2004. Implementation of FIN 46R did not have a material effect on the Firm’s Consolidated financial statements.
The application of FIN 46R involves significant judgment and interpretations by management. The Firm is aware of various interpretations being developed among accounting professionals with regard to analyzing derivatives under FIN 46R. It is management’s current interpretation that derivatives should be evaluated by focusing on an economic analysis of the rights and obligations of a VIE’s assets, liabilities, equity and other contracts, while considering: the entity’s activities and design; the terms of
14
the derivative contract and the role it has with the entity; the role, if any, that the Firm has in establishing the entity; the expectations of the variable interest holders; and whether the derivative contract creates and/or absorbs variability. The Firm will assess evolving interpretations of FIN 46R and any potential new guidance issued by the FASB on this issue. Additional guidance and interpretations may affect the Firm’s current application of FIN 46R to its activities in future periods.
VIEs are primarily utilized by the Firm’s Investment Bank (“IB”) business segment to assist clients in accessing the financial markets in a cost-efficient manner, and to tailor products for investors as a financial intermediary. There are two broad categories of transactions involving VIEs with which the IB is involved: multi-seller conduits and client intermediation.
Multi-seller conduitsJPMorgan Chase serves as the administrator and provides contingent liquidity support and limited credit enhancement for several commercial paper conduits. The commercial paper issued by the conduits is backed by sufficient collateral, credit enhancements and commitments to provide liquidity to support receiving at least an A-1, P-1 and, in certain cases, F1 rating.
The following table provides a summary of the multi-seller conduits in which the Firm acts as administrator, as well as the Firm’s total commitments and maximum exposure to loss related to these multi-seller conduits:
The Firm views its credit exposure to multi-seller conduit transactions as limited. This is because, for the most part, the Firm is not required to fund under the liquidity facilities if the assets in the VIE are in default. Additionally, the Firm’s obligations under the letters of credit are secondary to the risk of first loss provided by the client or other third parties – for example, by the overcollateralization of the VIE with the assets sold to it.
JPMorgan Chase consolidated these asset-backed commercial paper conduits at July 1, 2003, in accordance with FIN 46 and recorded the assets and liabilities of the conduits on its Consolidated balance sheet. In December 2003 and February 2004, two of the multi-seller conduits were restructured with each conduit issuing preferred securities acquired by an independent third-party investor, who absorbs the majority of the expected losses of the conduit. In determining the primary beneficiary of the restructured conduits, the Firm leveraged an existing rating agency model that is an independent market standard to size the expected losses and considered the relative rights and obligations of each of the variable interest holders. As a result of the restructuring, JPMorgan Chase deconsolidated $5.4 billion of one vehicle’s assets and liabilities as of December 31, 2003, and an additional $5.2 billion of another vehicle’s assets and liabilities as of March 31, 2004. As of March 31, 2004, the remaining conduit consolidated on the Firm’s balance sheet included $1.2 billion of assets recorded in Available-for-sale securities. As of December 31, 2003, the conduits consolidated on the Firm’s balance sheet included $4.8 billion of assets recorded in loans, and $1.5 billion of assets recorded in Available-for-sale securities.
Client intermediationAs a financial intermediary, the Firm is involved in structuring VIE transactions to meet investor and client needs. Assets held by certain client intermediation-related VIEs at March 31, 2004, and December 31, 2003, were as follows:
15
Finally, the Firm may enter into transactions with VIEs structured by other parties; refer to Note 14 on pages 103-106 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2003 Annual Report for a further description of the Firm’s involvement with these VIEs.
The following table summarizes the Firm’s total consolidated VIE assets, by classification on the Consolidated balance sheet, as of March 31, 2004, and December 31, 2003:
The interest-bearing beneficial interest liabilities issued by consolidated VIEs are classified in the line item titled “Beneficial interests issued by consolidated variable interest entities.” The holders of these beneficial interests do not have recourse to the general credit of JPMorgan Chase.
NOTE 13 – PRIVATE EQUITY INVESTMENTSFor a further description of private equity investments, see Note 15 on page 106 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2003 Annual Report. The following table presents the carrying value and cost of the Firm’s private equity investment portfolio, primarily related to JPMorgan Partners, for the dates indicated:
The following table presents the Firm’s private equity gains (losses), primarily related to JPMorgan Partners, for the periods indicated:
16
NOTE 14 – GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLE ASSETSGoodwill and other intangible assets consist of the following:
GoodwillAs of March 31, 2004, goodwill increased by $219 million compared with December 31, 2003, principally in connection with acquisitions by the Institutional Trust Services and Treasury Services businesses. Goodwill was not impaired at March 31, 2004, or December 31, 2003, nor was any goodwill written off during the three months ended March 31, 2004 or 2003.
Goodwill by business segment is as follows:
Mortgage servicing rightsFor a further description of mortgage servicing rights (“MSRs”) and interest rate risk management of MSRs, see Note 16 on pages 107-109 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2003 Annual Report. The following table summarizes the changes in MSRs during the first three months of 2004 and 2003:
JPMorgan Chase uses a combination of derivatives and AFS securities to manage changes in the market value of MSRs. The intent is to offset any changes in the market value of MSRs with changes in the market value of the related risk management instrument. MSRs decrease in value when interest rates decline. Conversely, AFS securities (such as mortgage backed securities), principal-only certificates, and derivatives increase in value when interest rates decline. See pages 45-46 for more information on Chase Home Finance’s hedging results.
The valuation allowance represents the extent to which the carrying value of MSRs exceeds its estimated fair value. Changes in the valuation allowance are the result of the recognition of impairment or the recovery of previously recognized impairment charges due to changes in market conditions during the period. The changes in the valuation allowance for MSRs were as follows:
17
Purchased credit card relationships and other intangible assetsThere were no purchased credit card relationship intangibles added during the three months ended March 31, 2004. For the three months ended March 31, 2004, other intangibles increased by $150 million, principally in connection with acquisitions by the Institutional Trust Services and Treasury Services businesses and acquisitions of investment management contracts. All of the Firm’s acquired intangible assets are subject to amortization.
The components of other intangible assets were as follows:
Future amortization expenseThe following table presents estimated amortization expense related to Purchased credit card relationships and All other intangible assets at March 31, 2004:
18
NOTE 15 – EARNINGS PER SHAREFor a discussion of the computation of basic and diluted earnings per share (“EPS”), see Note 22 on page 112 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2003 Annual Report. The following table presents the calculation of basic and diluted EPS for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003:
NOTE 16 – ACCUMULATED OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOMEAccumulated other comprehensive income is composed of Net income and Other comprehensive income (“OCI”), which includes the after-tax change in unrealized gains and losses on AFS securities, cash flow hedging activities and foreign currency translation adjustments (including the impact of related derivatives).
19
NOTE 17 – CAPITALFor a discussion of the calculation of risk-based capital ratios, see Note 26 on pages 114-115 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2003 Annual Report.
The following table presents the risk-based capital ratios for JPMorgan Chase and its significant banking subsidiaries. At March 31, 2004, the Firm and each of its depository institutions, including those listed in the table below, were “well-capitalized” as defined by banking regulators.
The following table shows the components of the Firm’s Tier 1 and total capital, as of the dates indicated:
NOTE 18 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIESFor a discussion of legal proceedings, including a discussion of the legal reserve established for Enron and other material litigation, see Part II, Item 1, Legal Proceedings, of this Form 10-Q.
NOTE 19 – ACCOUNTING FOR DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS AND HEDGING ACTIVITIESThe majority of JPMorgan Chase’s derivatives are entered into for trading purposes. The Firm also uses derivatives as an end-user to hedge market exposures, modify the interest rate characteristics of related balance sheet instruments or meet longer-term investment objectives. Both trading and end-user derivatives are recorded in trading assets and liabilities. For a further discussion of the Firm’s use of derivative instruments, see pages 58-61 and Note 28 on pages 116-117 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2003 Annual Report.
20
The following table presents derivative instrument hedging-related activities for the periods indicated:
Over the next 12 months, it is expected that $77 million (after-tax) of net gains recorded in Other comprehensive income at March 31, 2004, will be recognized in earnings. The maximum length of time over which forecasted transactions are hedged is 10 years, related to core lending and borrowing activities.
NOTE 20 – OFF-BALANCE SHEET LENDING-RELATED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND GUARANTEESFor a discussion of off-balance sheet lending-related financial instruments and guarantees and the Firm’s related accounting policies, see Note 29 on pages 117-119 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2003 Annual Report.
To provide for the risk of loss inherent in commercial-related contracts, an allowance for credit losses on lending-related commitments is maintained. See pages 65-66 of this Form 10-Q for a further discussion on the allowance for credit losses on lending-related commitments.
The following table summarizes the contractual amounts relating to off-balance sheet lending-related financial instruments and guarantees and the related allowance for credit losses on lending-related commitments at March 31, 2004, and December 31, 2003:
For a discussion of the off-balance sheet lending arrangements which the Firm considers to be guarantees under FIN 45, see pages 117-118 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2003 Annual Report. The amount of the liability related to guarantees recorded at March 31, 2004, excluding the allowance for credit losses on lending-related commitments and derivative contracts discussed below, was approximately $101 million.
In addition to the contracts noted above, there are certain derivative contracts to which the Firm is a counterparty that meet the characteristics of a guarantee under FIN 45. For a description of the derivatives the Firm considers to be guarantees, see Note 29 on pages 117-119 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2003 Annual Report. These derivatives are recorded on the Consolidated balance sheets at fair value. The total notional values of the derivatives that the Firm deems to be guarantees were $54 billion and $50 billion at March 31, 2004, and December 31, 2003, respectively. The fair values related to these contracts at March 31, 2004, were a derivative
21
receivable of $180 million and a derivative payable of $466 million. The fair values of these contracts at December 31, 2003, were a derivative receivable of $163 million and a derivative payable of $333 million.
NOTE 21 – FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTSRefer to Note 31 on pages 120-123 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2003 Annual Report for a full description of fair value methodologies by product. For those financial instruments that are not recorded on the Consolidated balance sheet at fair value, fair value is based on quoted market prices, where available. If listed prices or quotes are not available, fair value is based on internally developed models that primarily use market-based or independent information as inputs. For commercial loans and lending-related commitments, fair value is determined based on the cost of credit derivatives. This cost is adjusted to account for the differences in recovery rates between bonds (on which the cost of credit derivatives is based) and loans; and for loan equivalents, which represents the portion of an unused commitment likely to become outstanding in the event an obligor defaults. For consumer loans, fair value is based on discounted cash flows. The fair value of loans in the held-for-sale and trading portfolios is generally based on observable market prices and prices of similar instruments. Fair value of consumer commitments is based on the primary market prices to originate new commitments.
These methods may produce a fair value calculation that may not be indicative of net realizable value or reflective of future fair values. Furthermore, the use of different methodologies to determine the fair value of certain financial instruments could result in a different estimate of fair value at the reporting date.
The following table presents the financial assets and liabilities valued under SFAS 107:
NOTE 22 – SEGMENT INFORMATIONJPMorgan Chase is organized into five major businesses: the Investment Bank, Treasury & Securities Services, Investment Management & Private Banking, JPMorgan Partners and Chase Financial Services. These businesses are segmented based on the products and services provided, or the type of customer served, and they reflect the manner in which financial information is currently evaluated by management. Results of these lines of business are presented on an “operating” basis. For a definition of operating basis, see the Glossary of Terms on pages 74-75 of this Form 10-Q. For a further discussion concerning JPMorgan Chase’s business segments, see Segment Results on pages 32-50 of this Form 10-Q.
Segment results, which are presented on an operating basis, reflect revenues on a tax-equivalent basis. The tax-equivalent gross-up for each business segment is based upon the level, type and tax jurisdiction of the earnings and assets within each business segment. The amount of the tax-equivalent gross-up for each business segment is eliminated within the Support Units and Corporate segment and was $(111) million and $(65) million for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
JPMorgan Chase uses shareholder value added (“SVA”), a non-GAAP financial measure, as its principal measure of segment profitability. See Segment Results on pages 27-28 and Note 34 on pages 126-127 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2003 Annual Report for a further discussion of performance measurements and policies for cost-of-capital allocation. The table below provides a summary of the Firm’s segment results for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003:
22
23
Part IItem 2
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSISOF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW
The momentum in global economic growth seen in 2003 carried into the first quarter of 2004, while business optimism continued to build, supported by attractive financial conditions, ongoing strong productivity and unprecedented recovery in corporate profits. Nevertheless, financial markets were volatile in the first quarter, reflecting uncertainty about the U.S. employment outlook and the actions the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve Board”) might take on interest rates. Investors entered 2004 braced for rising interest rates, but with hiring slack, the economy far below potential and inflation benign, a market consensus developed in the quarter that the Federal Reserve Board’s policy would remain on hold for most of the year.
These factors created a favorable capital markets environment for JPMorgan Chase, which contributed to earnings growth in the Firm’s IB and IMPB segments to their highest levels in over three years, and provided opportunities for JPMP to realize gains. The strength in capital markets-related businesses more than offset an earnings decline at CFS, which reflected the slowdown in the mortgage refinancing market. As a result of improved credit quality in the commercial portfolio and ongoing portfolio management activities utilizing credit derivatives and loan sales, the Firm improved its credit risk profile.
Net income for JPMorgan Chase of $1.9 billion, or $0.92 per share, was the highest quarterly result since the December 2000 merger of The Chase Manhattan Corporation and J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated.
24
Part IItem 2 (continued)
Total revenue of $9.0 billion grew by 7% over the first quarter of 2003 and 11% over the fourth quarter. IB trading revenues benefited from favorable fixed income market and currency conditions: corporate credit spreads remained narrow, bond yields declined and the dollar continued to weaken against most major currencies. Equity market values rose and equity issuance increased, adding to the strength in trading and contributing to the increase in private equity gains at JPMP and in fees and commissions at IB, IMPB and TSS. Countering these favorable market conditions was a decline in Global Treasury’s revenues (securities gains and net interest income) and in mortgage origination volumes across the industry. At Chase Home Finance (“CHF”), total mortgage originations declined by 39% compared with the first quarter of 2003.
Total expenses of $6.1 billion increased by 9% year-over-year and 16% over the fourth quarter level. The fourth quarter of 2003 had an unusually low base of expenses due to an adjustment to incentive accruals, which reduced compensation costs to reflect full-year incentives. Incentive accruals were higher relative to prior periods because of higher revenues. The largest expense increases compared with the first quarter of 2003 were in CHF, within CFS, and TSS. As a result of the unprecedented refinancing boom during 2003, CHF increased staff throughout the year to keep pace with volumes; expenses remained comparable to fourth quarter 2003 levels. Management expects expenses in both CHF and TSS to moderate in future quarters to reflect the reduction in business volumes at CHF, and the realization of synergies from acquisitions at TSS.
The first quarter of 2004 Provision for credit losses of $15 million declined significantly from both comparable periods and was $429 million lower than net charge-offs in the quarter. Most of the reduction in the allowance for credit losses was due to improvement in the quality of the commercial portfolio. During the first quarter of 2004, the Firm’s commercial nonperforming loans declined by 45% and criticized exposure levels declined by 49% compared with the first quarter of 2003. At the same time, the consumer portfolio had lower delinquencies and net charge-offs versus both comparable periods. As improvements in the quality of the commercial portfolio taper off and demand for commercial loans picks up, reductions in the allowance for credit losses should moderate and credit costs could increase from the first quarter 2004 level.
The Firm’s capital position at March 31, 2004, was strong. Tier 1 capital of $44.7 billion increased by 16% from the first quarter and 4% from the fourth quarter of 2003 as retained earnings increased. A rise in risk-weighted assets (as defined by banking regulators) resulted in a Tier 1 ratio that was flat compared with the year-ago level and lower than the year-end ratio. The regulatory weightings do not distinguish between the risk ratings of credit exposure. At the same time, the Firm’s internal measure of risk in the businesses, the amount of allocated capital, declined by 11% from the first quarter and 2% from the fourth quarter of 2003, as IB reduced credit risk and JPMP reduced private equity investments.
The table below shows JPMorgan Chase’s segment results. These results reflect the manner in which the Firm’s financial information is currently evaluated by management and are presented on an operating basis. For a discussion of the Firm’s Segment results, including more information about operating results, see pages 32–50 of this Form 10-Q. Prior-period segment results have been adjusted to reflect the alignment of management accounting policies or changes in organizational structure among businesses.
IB reported operating earnings of $1.1 billion for the first quarter of 2004, its best performance in three years, up 24% and 29% from the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively. The low–interest rate environment, volatility in credit markets, and improvement in equity markets produced increased client and portfolio management revenue in fixed income and equities. This coupled with negative credit costs (i.e., a benefit to income) drove results.
TSS operating earnings of $119 million for the quarter were up 6% compared with the first quarter of 2003 and down 17% compared with the fourth quarter of 2003; the fourth quarter result included a $41 million pre-tax gain on the sale of a nonstrategic business. Acquisitions in Institutional Trust Services and Treasury Services drove revenue and expense growth in TSS. Higher global equity values resulted in increased fees in Investor Services, as pricing is tied to asset levels. Average deposits for TSS were up 33% from
25
the first quarter of 2003, though spreads on deposits were low given the low level of interest rates. At 15%, Return on average allocated capital for TSS was negatively affected by goodwill from acquisitions.
IMPB increased operating earnings and assets under supervision in the first quarter of 2004 compared with the year-ago and prior quarters, aided by increased equity market valuations in client portfolios and increased brokerage activity. Net inflows in the quarter were at their highest levels in more than two years; strong inflows from the retail segment were coupled with net positive institutional inflows for the first time in more than a year, a reflection of improved investment performance.
JPMP performance improved significantly, with a positive $526 million increase in private equity gains from the first quarter of 2003. Net gains on direct private equity investments, at $304 million, benefited from higher sales ($302 million in realized gains) and liquidity events such as initial public offerings and much lower negative net valuation adjustments ($23 million) of companies in the portfolio.
CFS operating earnings declined by $221 million from the first quarter of 2003, 92% of which was due to the decline in earnings at CHF. Strong production results in many of the businesses – including increased purchase volume at Chase Cardmember Services, deposit growth at Chase Regional Banking and Chase Middle Market, and higher home equity originations at CHF – were more than offset by deposit spread compression, weak automobile leasing results and higher severance and related costs.
Business outlook
Business events
Agreement to merge with Bank One Corporation
The merged company, headquartered in New York, will be known as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and will have combined assets of $1.1 trillion, a strong capital base, 2,300 branches in 17 states and top-tier positions in retail banking and lending, credit cards, investment banking, asset management, private banking, treasury and securities services, middle markets and private equity. It is expected that cost savings of approximately $2.2 billion (pre-tax) will be achieved by 2007. Merger-related costs are expected to be approximately $3 billion (pre-tax).
Immediately following the announcement of the agreement to merge, integration planning was initiated. To date, detailed integration plans have been developed, with more than 2,000 milestones centrally monitored; decisions have been made on most of the technology platforms that will be used by the combined firm. For further information concerning the merger, see Note 2 on page 7 of this Form 10-Q.
26
Investment banking fees
Trading revenue
Fees and commissions
The increases from both periods for Investment management and service fees and Custody and institutional trust service fees were primarily due to higher equity valuations of Assets under supervision (which includes assets under custody); organic growth in the businesses including net inflows of assets under supervision; and to the acquisitions of the Bank One corporate trust business in November 2003 (which contributed $22 million) and JPMorgan Retirement Plan Services (“RPS”) in June 2003 (which contributed $21 million). Credit card fees rose by 6% from the first quarter of 2003, reflecting higher servicing fees on the $1.5 billion growth in average securitized credit card receivables; higher fees earned from the retained credit card portfolio as a result of the more robust customer purchase volume; and the favorable impact of changes in the pricing of several card products and services. The decline in Credit card fees from the immediately preceding quarter reflected the seasonal decrease in purchase volume.
Brokerage commissions increases from both periods were driven by the higher activity levels in the global equities market. Lending-related service fees were up from the first quarter of 2003 as a result of the growth in business volume, including a $3.3 billion, or 85%, growth in the automobile loan servicing portfolio. The decline in Lending-related service fees from the prior quarter was principally attributable to a lower volume of standby letters of credit negotiated in the quarter. The decrease in Deposit service fees compared with the first quarter of 2003 reflected higher balances maintained by institutional customers in their deposit accounts, which reduced fees in lieu of compensating balances or balance deficiency fees. The increase in Other fees was largely due to the acquisition of the Electronic Financial Services (“EFS”) business from Citigroup in January 2004, which contributed $55 million.
For additional information on Fees and commissions, see the segment discussions of IMPB for investment management fees on pages 38–40, TSS for custody and securities processing fees on pages 37–38, and CFS for consumer-related fees on pages 43–49 of this Form 10-Q.
27
Private equity gains (losses)
Securities gains
Mortgage fees and related income
Other revenue
Net interest income
On an aggregate basis, the Firm’s total average interest-earning assets for the first quarter of 2004 were $601 billion, relatively stable in comparison with the $598 billion recorded in the first quarter of last year. The net interest yield on these assets, on a fully taxable-equivalent basis, was 1.90% in the 2004 first quarter, 29 basis points lower than in the same period last year.
NONINTEREST EXPENSE
Compensation expense
28
The Firm had 93,285 full-time equivalent employees at March 31, 2004, compared with 93,878 at March 31, 2003, and 93,453 at December 31, 2003. The reduction in the number of employees in staff areas was mitigated by increases in growing businesses.
Occupancy expense
Technology and communications expense
Other expense
For Professional services, the increase from last year’s first quarter was associated with higher counsel fees, related to growth in securities underwriting transactions; whereas the decrease from the 2003 fourth quarter reflected lower litigation-related legal expenses. The increase in Outside services from both the first and fourth quarters of 2003 was primarily attributable to greater utilization of third-party vendors for processing activities in TSS and CFS. The expense increase at TSS was affected by the acquisition of a business in the first quarter of 2004, which contributed $26 million. The increase in Marketing from the first quarter of 2003 reflects higher direct marketing campaigns in credit card and advertising by Regional Banking.
Provision for credit losses
Income tax expense
29
The Firm prepares its Consolidated financial statements using GAAP. The Consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP appear on pages 3–6 of this Form 10-Q. That presentation, which is referred to as “reported basis,” provides the reader with an understanding of the Firm’s results that can be consistently tracked from year to year and enables a comparison of the Firm’s performance with other companies’ GAAP financial statements.
In addition to analyzing the Firm’s results on a reported basis, management reviews the line-of-business results on an “operating basis,” which is a non-GAAP financial measure. The definition of operating basis starts with the reported GAAP results. In the case of IB, operating basis includes in Trading revenue the NII related to trading activities. Trading activities generate revenues which are recorded for GAAP purposes in two line items on the income statement: trading revenues, which include the mark-to-market gains or losses on trading positions; and net interest income, which includes the interest income or expense related to those positions. Combining both the trading revenues and related net interest income enables management to evaluate IB’s trading activities by considering all revenue related to these activities and facilitates operating comparisons to other competitors. For a further discussion of Trading-related revenue, see IB on page 34–37 of this Form 10-Q. In the case of Chase Cardmember Services, operating or managed basis excludes the impact of credit card securitizations on revenue, the provision for credit losses, net charge-offs and receivables. JPMorgan Chase uses the concept of “managed receivables” to evaluate the credit performance of the underlying credit card loans, both sold and not sold: as the same borrower is continuing to use the credit card for ongoing charges, a borrower’s credit performance will impact both the receivables sold under SFAS 140 and those not sold. Thus, in its disclosures regarding managed receivables, JPMorgan Chase treats the sold receivables as if they were still on the balance sheet in order to disclose the credit performance (such as net charge-off rates) of the entire managed credit card portfolio. The operating basis for all other lines of business is the same as reported basis. For a further discussion of credit card securitizations, see Chase Cardmember Services on pages 46–47 of this Form 10-Q.
30
The following summary table provides a reconciliation from the Firm’s reported to operating results:
31
Management uses the SVA framework as its primary measure of profitability for the Firm and each of its business segments. To derive SVA, the Firm applies a cost of capital to each business segment. The capital elements and resultant capital charges provide the businesses and investors with a financial framework by which to evaluate the trade-off between the use of capital by each business unit versus its return to shareholders. JPMorgan Chase varies the amount of capital attributed to lines of business based on its estimate of the economic risk capital required by the line of business as a result of the credit, market, operational and business risk for each particular line of business and private equity risk for JPMorgan Partners. JPMorgan Chase believes this risk-adjusted approach to economic capital compensates for differing levels of risk across businesses, and therefore a constant 12% cost of capital can be applied across businesses with differing levels of risk. The cost of capital for JPMorgan Partners is 15%, because JPMorgan Chase believes that the business risk for JPMP is so sufficiently differentiated that, even after risk-adjustment, a higher cost of capital is warranted. Capital charges are an integral part of the SVA measurement for each business. Under the Firm’s model, average common equity is either underallocated or overallocated to the business segments, as compared with the Firm’s total common stockholders’ equity. The revenue and SVA impact of this over/under allocation is reported under Support Units and Corporate. See segment results on pages 27–28 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2003 Annual Report for a further discussion of SVA, and the Glossary of Terms on pages 74–75 of this Form 10-Q for a definition of SVA.
The following table provides a reconciliation of the Firm’s operating earnings to SVA on a consolidated basis:
In addition, management uses certain non-GAAP financial measures at the segment level. Management believes these non-GAAP financial measures provide information to investors in understanding the underlying operational performance and performance trends of the particular business segment and facilitate a comparison with the performance of competitors. These include Total return revenue in IB, Tangible shareholder value added and Tangible allocated capital in IMPB, and managed receivables and managed assets in Chase Cardmember Services. For a discussion of these line of business–specific non-GAAP financial measures, see the respective segment disclosures in segment results on pages 32–50 of this Form 10-Q.
Management measures its exposure to derivative receivables and commercial lending–related commitments on an “economic credit exposure” basis. See Credit risk management in this Form 10-Q on pages 54–62.
The following table provides a reconciliation of the Firm’s average assets to average managed assets, a non-GAAP financial measure on a consolidated basis:
JPMorgan Chase’s lines of business are segmented based on the products and services provided or the type of customer serviced and reflect the manner in which financial information is currently evaluated by the Firm’s management. Revenues and expenses directly associated with each segment are included in determining that segment’s results. Management accounting and other policies exist to allocate those remaining expenses that are not directly incurred by the segments.
The segment results also reflect revenue- and expense-sharing agreements between certain lines of business. Revenue and expenses attributed to shared activities are recognized in each line of business, and any double counting is eliminated at the segment level.
32
These arrangements promote cross-selling and management of shared client expenses. They also ensure that the contributions of both businesses are fully recognized. Prior-period segment results have been adjusted to reflect alignment of management accounting policies or changes in organizational structure among businesses. Restatements of segment results may occur in the future. See Note 22 on pages 22–23 of this Form 10-Q for further information about JPMorgan Chase’s five business segments.
Contribution of businesses for the first quarter of 2004
As of March 31, 2004, the overhead ratio for each business segment was: IB, 59%; TSS, 83%; IMPB, 77%; and CFS, 59%. Overhead ratios provide comparability for a particular segment with its respective competitors; they do not necessarily provide comparability among the business segments themselves, as each business segment has its own particular revenue and expense structure.
33
Part IItem 2(continued)
INVESTMENT BANK
34
IB operating earnings were $1.1 billion in the first quarter, compared with $897 million in the first quarter of 2003 and $862 million in the fourth quarter of 2003. Earnings performance was driven by higher equity and fixed income capital markets results including record trading revenues compared with the first and fourth quarters of 2003. A significant improvement in commercial credit quality, offset in part by the anticipated reduction in Global Treasury, also contributed to the increase over the first quarter of 2003. Return on average allocated capital was 28% for the quarter, compared with 17% and 20% for the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively.
Operating revenues of $4.0 billion were 1% lower than in the first quarter of 2003 and up 31% from the fourth quarter of 2003. Investment banking fees were $682 million, up 10% from the 2003 first quarter on higher equity and bond underwriting fees, which were driven by increased market volumes, and partially offset by lower loan syndication and advisory fees. These fees were down 18% from a strong 2003 fourth quarter, due primarily to lower equity underwriting, loan syndication and advisory fees. The decline in equity underwriting compared with the fourth quarter of 2003 reflected lower market volumes of rights issues in Europe; the decline in loan syndication fees reflected lower volumes in new commercial loan syndications. According to Thomson Financial, the Firm maintained its No. 1 ranking in global syndicated loans and No. 2 ranking in global investment-grade bonds. For the first quarter of 2004 compared with full-year 2003, the Investment Bank increased its ranking in global announced M&A to No. 3 from No. 5, while its ranking in U.S. equity and equity-related declined to No. 7 from No. 4. However, in U.S. initial public offerings, the Firm improved its ranking from No. 14 for full-year 2003 to No. 4.
Composition of Capital Markets & Lending Revenue and Global Treasury:
35
IB’s capital markets and lending activities include fixed income and equities revenue and revenue from the Firm’s credit portfolio, which includes corporate lending and credit risk management activities. The capital markets and lending revenue includes both client (i.e., market-making) revenue and portfolio management revenue; the latter reflects net gains or losses, exclusive of client revenue, generated from managing residual risks in the portfolios, as well as gains or losses related to proprietary risk-taking activities to capture market opportunities. IB evaluates its capital markets activities by considering all revenue related to these activities, including Trading-related revenue, Fees and commissions, Securities gains, lending-related NII and other revenue.
Capital markets and lending revenue (excluding Global Treasury) for the quarter was $3.1 billion, up 11% and 49% from the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively, due to substantial gains in equities as well as continued strong performance in fixed income. Equity capital markets revenue of $673 million increased substantially, up 56% and 97% over the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively. Results were driven by higher trading revenue in both equity derivatives and convertibles, reflecting higher client revenues in derivatives and increased portfolio management in an upward-moving market environment. Higher brokerage fees and commissions within the equity cash business were driven by higher market volumes. Fixed income revenue of $2.1 billion increased by 5% from the first quarter and 51% from the fourth quarter of 2003, driven by increased trading revenues. The increases in trading revenue reflected strength in both client and portfolio management activities, driven by the continued favorable interest rate environment. Client-related trading revenues were up in both the credit markets and interest rates businesses. In particular, foreign exchange posted record results, driven by increased volumes in foreign exchange options. Credit Portfolio revenue of $347 million was down 12% and 4% from the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively, driven primarily by lower loan volume and a continued decline in credit risk capital, resulting in lower NII for the period. The lower NII was partially offset by an increase in Trading revenue due to spread widening on credit derivatives that are used to manage risk in the loan portfolio. For additional information, see the Credit risk management discussion on credit derivatives on pages 61–62 of this Form 10-Q.
Global Treasury’s operating revenue was $212 million, down 65% from the first quarter of 2003 and up 48% from the fourth quarter of 2003. The decrease from the year-ago quarter reflected lower levels of NII, driven by lower coupon reinvestment rates compared with the prior year. Securities gains decreased by 68% from the first quarter of 2003 due to substantial realized gains last year in the Firm’s AFS investment securities portfolio. The increase in securities gains from the fourth quarter of 2003 was attributable to the higher volume of sales in connection with Global Treasury’s repositioning activities to manage, in part, the Asset/liability exposure of the Firm. Global Treasury is managed on a total-return revenue basis, which includes revenue plus the change in unrealized gains or losses on investment securities and risk management activities (included in Other comprehensive income) and internally transfer-priced assets and liabilities. Global Treasury’s total-return revenue was negative $17 million for the first quarter of 2004, down from $535 million in the first quarter and $222 million in the fourth quarter of 2003. The decline was driven by spread widening on mortgage-backed securities, which are used to help manage the Firm’s overall interest rate exposure. Global Treasury’s activities complement, and offer a strategic balance and diversification benefit to, the Firm’s trading and fee-based activities. For a reconciliation of Global Treasury’s total revenue to total-return revenue, see page 34 of this Form 10-Q.
Operating expense of $2.4 billion was up 3% from the first quarter and 29% from the fourth quarter of 2003. The increase from the year-ago quarter was attributable to higher compensation expenses, as a result of salary increases, higher employer taxes on a higher level of restricted stock vestings, and increased travel and entertainment and legal costs. The increase over the prior quarter was largely due to higher compensation expenses, reflecting higher incentives on stronger business performance. Partially offsetting these increases were lower severance and related costs. The overhead ratio for the first quarter of 2004 was 59%, an increase of 200 basis points over the first quarter of 2003, driven by the expense increases mentioned above.
Credit costs were negative $188 million for the quarter, compared with credit costs of $245 million for the first quarter of 2003 and negative $241 million for the fourth quarter of 2003. The reduction in credit costs from the prior-year quarter was primarily attributable to a reduction in the allowance for credit losses as credit quality improved. For additional information, see Credit risk management on pages 64–66 of this Form 10-Q.
36
Outlook: IB is expected to continue to benefit from the improved economic environment. IB fees and client trading activity are largely independent of the direction of interest rate moves, although trading revenue in subsequent quarters may be lower as the first quarter is usually seasonally strong. Commercial credit costs may rise, reflecting an increase in demand for loans and lower recoveries.
TREASURY & SECURITIES SERVICES
37
TSS reported operating earnings of $119 million, a 6% increase from the first quarter of 2003 and a 17% decrease from the fourth quarter of 2003. Return on average allocated capital for the quarter was 15%, compared with 16% for the first quarter and 21% for the fourth quarter of 2003.
Operating revenue was $1.1 billion in the first quarter of 2004, an increase of 19% and 3% from the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively. Fees and commissions were up 25% and 10% from the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively, primarily driven by the acquisition of Citigroup’s Electronic Financial Services business by Treasury Services, and by Institutional Trust Services’ acquisitions of Bank One’s corporate trust business and of Financial Computer Software, L.P. In addition, Fees and commissions were higher due to increased debt and equity market appreciation, coupled with increased organic growth (i.e., new business and volume growth of existing clients) at Investor Services and Institutional Trust Services. Excluding the acquisitions, Fees and commissions would have increased by 11% from the first quarter of 2003. Net interest income increased by 8% and 3% from the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively, due to higher U.S. and non-U.S. deposits, partially offset by lower interest rate spreads on deposits, attributable to the low–interest rate environment. All other revenue was 26% higher than in the first quarter of 2003, primarily driven by higher foreign exchange revenue, which is the result of increased transaction volume at Investor Services. All other revenue was 47% lower than in the fourth quarter of 2003, which included a $41 million gain on the sale of a nonstrategic business.
Operating expense increased by 20% and 9% from the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively. Compensation expense was up 10% and 7% from the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively, primarily driven by the aforementioned acquisitions, coupled with staff increases to support the new business and volume growth, as well as higher incentives. Noncompensation expense was up 27% and 14% from the first and fourth quarters of 2003, reflecting the impact of the aforementioned acquisitions, higher professional services for strategic investments and technology projects, and increased costs to support new business and higher volumes. Severance costs were up $3 million from the first quarter of 2003 and down $12 million from the fourth quarter of 2003. In addition, fourth quarter 2003 severance and related costs included $4 million in charges to provide for losses on subletting unoccupied excess real estate. The first quarter 2004 overhead ratio was 83%, compared with 83% and 79% for the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively. The increase from the fourth quarter was the result of the aforementioned gain on the sale of a nonstrategic business recorded in the fourth quarter of 2003. Excluding the gain on the aforementioned sale, the fourth quarter 2003 overhead ratio would have been 82%.
Assets under custody of $8.0 trillion in the first quarter of 2004 were 28% and 5% higher than in the first and fourth quarter of 2003, respectively, due to increases in the debt and equity markets as well as new business and organic growth.
Outlook: Management anticipates improving overhead ratios for TSS over the balance of the year, as the expense synergies from the acquisitions by Treasury Services and Institutional Trust Services materialize and as revenues in Investor Services benefit from improving equity markets.
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT & PRIVATE BANKING
38
IMPB reported operating earnings of $115 million in the first quarter of 2004, an increase of 326% from the first quarter and 15% from the fourth quarter of 2003. Return on average allocated capital for the first quarter of 2004 was 8%, compared with 2% in the first quarter of 2003 and 7% in the fourth quarter of 2003. Return on tangible allocated capital was 36%, compared with 8% in the first quarter of 2003 and 30% in the fourth quarter of 2003. For further information on tangible allocated capital, see footnote (a) in the table above.
Operating revenue was $824 million, 29% higher than in the first quarter of 2003 and flat to the fourth quarter of 2003. Global equity markets continued to improve during the first quarter of 2004 (as exemplified by the S&P 500 index, which rose by 33% since the first quarter of 2003, and the MSCI World index, which rose by 41%). The increase from the prior-year quarter in Fees and commissions primarily reflected global equity market appreciation; the impact of the acquisition of American Century Retirement Plan Services Inc., renamed JPMorgan Retirement Plan Services (“RPS”), in June 2003; and increased brokerage activity. Higher earnings from the Firm’s investment in American Century, in addition to the impact of accounting for the RPS joint venture prior to the acquisition, drove the increase in All other revenue. Additionally, Other revenue for the first quarter of 2003 included a gain on the sale of a Brazilian investment management business, offset by charges incurred at American Century. The increase in Fees and commissions from the prior quarter reflected global equity market appreciation and AUS net inflows, offset by a decline in All other revenue associated with real estate gains recorded in the fourth quarter of 2003.
Operating expense of $636 million was 9% higher compared with the first quarter of 2003 and flat compared with the fourth quarter of 2003. The increase from the year-ago quarter reflected the impact of the acquisition of RPS on compensation and noncompensation expense, as well as higher compensation expense reflecting strong earnings and increased marketing expense; these were offset by real estate and software write-offs taken in the first quarter of 2003. The increase from the prior quarter reflected higher compensation and marketing expense, offset by real estate and software write-offs taken in the fourth quarter of 2003. Credit costs were $10 million, up from $6 million in the prior-year quarter and down from $36 million in the prior quarter, reflecting provisions taken in the fourth quarter of 2003 and the first quarter of 2004.
The overhead ratio for the quarter ending March 31, 2004, was 77%, a decrease from 91% for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, and flat compared with the fourth quarter of 2003. The decrease reflected improved operating leverage, as the beneficial impact of higher market valuations on revenues outpaced growth in expenses.
39
Total Assets under supervision at March 31, 2004, of $797 billion were 28% higher than at March 31, 2003, and up 5% from December 31, 2003. Assets under supervision increased from the first quarter of 2003, reflecting market appreciation and, to a lesser extent, the acquisition of RPS and AUS net inflows. The increase from the fourth quarter of 2003 reflected market appreciation and AUS net inflows. Not reflected in Assets under management is the Firm’s 44% equity interest in American Century, whose Assets under management were $90 billion at quarter-end, compared with $71 billion as of the first quarter of 2003 and $87 billion as of the fourth quarter of 2003.
Outlook: IMPB is expected to benefit from improving equity markets, which should result in new inflows while increasing the value of assets under supervision.
40
JPMORGAN PARTNERS
JPMP reported operating earnings of $115 million for the 2004 first quarter, compared with an operating loss of $223 million in the first quarter of 2003 and operating earnings of $23 million in the fourth quarter of 2003.
Total private equity gains in the first quarter were $296 million, compared with losses of $230 million in the first quarter of 2003 and gains of $159 million in the fourth quarter of 2003. During the first quarter, JPMP’s direct private equity investments recorded net gains of $304 million, compared with a net loss of $136 million in the first quarter of 2003 and a net gain of $198 million in the fourth quarter of 2003. JPMP’s direct private equity results included $302 million in realized gains, mark-to-market gains of $25 million on direct public investments, and net write-downs and write-offs of $23 million taken on direct private investment positions. Limited partner interests in third-party funds resulted in net losses of $8 million, compared with net losses of $94 million and $39 million in the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively. First quarter results include a significant realized gain attributable to a private sale completed in the Consumer Retail & Services sector. Overall, JPMP’s performance benefited from active public and private capital markets during the period, which generated opportunities for liquidity events and value recognition through sales, recapitalizations and initial public offerings.
41
JPMP investment portfolio
The private equity business is highly cyclical, and JPMP’s results are subject to significant volatility associated with the public equity markets, availability of high-yield financing for leveraged buyout transactions and investor appetite for private equity. With improving economic conditions, JPMP may have increased opportunities to exit profitably direct investments as well as make new investments that are anticipated to generate high returns.
JPMP invested $162 million in direct private equity for the Firm’s account during the first quarter of 2004, primarily in buyouts in the Consumer Retail & Services sector.
The following table presents the carrying value and cost of the JPMP investment portfolio for the dates indicated:
Outlook: JPMP’s performance is expected to improve as a result of improving equity markets and higher merger activity.
42
CHASE FINANCIAL SERVICES
CFS reported first quarter 2004 operating earnings of $427 million, a decrease of 34% and 24% from the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively. Return on average allocated capital for the first quarter was 18%, compared with 31% for the first quarter and 25% for the fourth quarter of 2003. Average allocated capital increased by 12% from the first quarter of 2003 and 6% from the fourth quarter of 2003, primarily due to an increase in market risk capital that is associated with the MSR risk management activities of Chase Home Finance.
Operating revenue was $3.4 billion, a decrease of 8% and 5% from the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively. The national consumer credit businesses, which includes Chase Home Finance, Chase Cardmember Services and Chase Auto Finance, contributed 74% of first quarter 2004 operating revenue. The declines in revenue were primarily driven by the anticipated slowdown in the mortgage refinance business, as well as the continued negative impact of the low–interest rate environment on the deposit businesses. Net interest income of $2.2 billion was down 2% and 8% from the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively, primarily due to lower interest on a lower level of AFS securities used to manage the interest rate risk associated with MSRs and lower spreads as a result of low interest rates. Fees and commissions increased by 6% from the first quarter of 2003, driven by higher credit card interchange fees due to higher consumer purchases, and decreased by 8% from the fourth quarter of 2003 due to seasonally lower
43
credit card revenue. Securities gains declined from the first and fourth quarters of 2003, primarily due to fewer securities sales associated with MSR risk management activities. Mortgage fees and related income of $241 million decreased from $432 million in the first quarter of 2003 and increased from $137 million in the fourth quarter of 2003. First quarter 2004 mortgage originations were lower when compared with both the first and fourth quarters of 2003, due to the decline in the mortgage refinance market. First quarter 2004 MSR hedging revenue improved over the fourth quarter of 2003.
Operating expense of $2.0 billion was up 11% and 7% compared with the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively. Compensation expense increased from both the first and fourth quarters of 2003. The increase from the year-ago quarter was primarily due to higher home equity production, as well as increases in the sales force for home equity and other higher-margin distribution channels. The increase in compensation expense from the fourth quarter was primarily due to higher salaries, benefits and incentives. Noncompensation expense increased from the prior periods primarily due to higher marketing costs, professional services and volume-related expenses. Severance and related costs increased from the prior periods due to restructuring in various lines of businesses, particularly in Chase Regional Banking; costs incurred to move certain credit card facilities to a lower-cost location; and, to a lesser extent, severance related to the anticipated merger with Bank One. CFS’s overhead ratio was 59%, compared with 49% for the first quarter of 2003 and 52% for the fourth quarter of 2003, reflecting a decline in revenue and the higher level of expenses. Savings generated by Six Sigma and other productivity efforts continued to partially offset the growth in expenses.
Credit costs of $748 million were down 15% from the first quarter and 13% from the fourth quarter of 2003. The declines reflected lower net charge-offs of 5% and 3% compared with the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively, and a reduction in the allowance for loan losses, reflecting improved credit quality. Delinquency rates in the consumer loan portfolios decreased compared with the first and fourth quarters of 2003.
The following table sets forth certain key financial performance measures of the businesses within CFS:
44
Outlook:CHF revenues and operating earnings are expected to decline for the remainder of the year as higher interest rates are likely to depress mortgage originations; however, management expects expenses at CHF to moderate in future quarters to reflect the reduced origination volume. CFS’ credit quality in consumer lending is expected to remain stable for the next several quarters.
Chase Home Finance
After a record performance in 2003, Chase Home Finance (“CHF”) reported operating earnings of $221 million, a decrease of 48% and 7% from the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively. For the first quarter of 2004, total revenue of $813 million decreased by 29% and 6% from the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively. During the first quarter, CHF operating revenue declined by 23% and 14% from the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively, as higher interest rates and a smaller refinance market lowered mortgage originations and margins. As described below, MSR hedging revenue declined relative to the first quarter of 2003 but increased by 92% relative to the fourth quarter of 2003.
CHF manages and measures its results from two key perspectives: its operating businesses (Production, Servicing and Portfolio Lending) and revenue generated through managing the interest rate risk associated with MSRs. The following table reconciles management’s perspective on CHF’s results to the reported GAAP line items shown on the Consolidated statement of income and in the related Notes to consolidated financial statements:
On an operating basis, Net interest income of $539 million declined from the fourth quarter of 2003, as CHF’s average loans declined. Offsetting the decline and driving the increase in Net interest income over the first quarter of 2003 was an increase in home equity balances, driven by origination growth of 60% over the first quarter of 2003. Home equity originations were down 8% compared with the fourth quarter of 2003, although applications were up 36%. Mortgage fees and related income were down compared with the first and fourth quarters of 2003, driven by lower origination volume of $38 billion versus $62 billion and $51 billion, respectively, in the first and fourth quarters of 2003. The declines reflect the smaller refinance market and price competition. Increases in servicing revenues of 7% and 14% over the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively, partially offset the decline in production revenue. Servicing balances as of March 31, 2004, were $475 billion, an increase of 10% from March 31, 2003, and 1% from December 31, 2003, the result of lower prepayments.
In its risk management activities, CHF uses a combination of derivatives and AFS securities to manage changes in the market value of MSRs. The intent is to offset any changes in the market value of MSRs with changes in the market value of the related risk management instrument. During the first quarter of 2004, negative MSR valuation adjustments of $685 million were partially offset by $678 million of aggregate derivative gains and net interest earned on AFS securities. Unrealized losses on AFS securities were $71 million at March 31, 2004, and $144 million at December 31, 2003. The decline in the Net interest income and Securities gains components of MSR revenue from the first and fourth quarters of 2003 is primarily due to a lower level of AFS securities used to
45
manage the interest rate risk associated with MSRs. The improvement in the Mortgage fees and related income component of MSR revenue from the first and fourth quarters of 2003 reflects the mix of instruments used to manage the interest rate risk associated with MSRs at any point in time and the impact of market conditions on those instruments rather than a particular trend. For a further discussion of the most significant assumptions used to value MSRs, please see “MSRs and certain other retained interests” in the Critical Accounting Estimates used by the Firm section and in Notes 13 and 16 on pages 100–103 and 107–109 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2003 Annual Report.
The following table reconciles the amounts shown as MSR valuation adjustments of CHF’s business:
Operating expense of $478 million increased by 25% from the first quarter of 2003 and decreased by 1% from the fourth quarter of 2003. The increase compared with the year-ago quarter was due to higher home equity production, as well as increases in the sales force for home equity and other higher-margin distribution channels. In the first two months of the first quarter of 2004, application volumes dropped dramatically but then rebounded in March; expenses, however, remained stable throughout the quarter. Higher expenses coupled with lower operating revenues increased CHF’s overhead ratio to 59%, as compared with 33% in the first quarter of 2003. Lower operating revenues drove the increase in CHF’s overhead ratio as compared with 56% in the fourth quarter of 2003.
Credit costs of negative $9 million decreased from both the first and fourth quarters of 2003. The decline from the prior-year quarter was primarily a result of weakness in the manufactured housing market in the beginning of 2003. The decrease from the fourth quarter of 2003 was due to a lower overall level of both actual and expected net charge-offs, which drove a reduction in the allowance for loan losses. Credit quality remained strong as the net charge-off rate for the first quarter of 2004 was 0.16%, down from 0.20% and 0.19% in the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively.
Chase Cardmember Services
CCS’s operating results exclude the impact of credit card securitizations on revenue, the provision for credit losses, net charge-offs and receivables. Securitization does not change CCS’s reported net income versus operating earnings; however, it does affect the classification of items on the Consolidated statement of income. The financial information presented below reconciles reported basis and managed basis to disclose the effect of securitizations.
46
Operating revenue was $1.6 billion, up 7% from the first quarter of 2003 and down 4% from the fourth quarter of 2003. The increase in revenue from last year reflected growth in both net interest and noninterest revenue. Net interest revenue increased by 5%, reflecting lower funding costs and growth in average managed loans. Average managed loans increased by 1% from a year ago, due partly to lower balance transfer volume and to higher payment rates, which reflected high consumer liquidity. Consumer liquidity remained high because of increased use of home equity products as well as lower tax rates. As a consequence, the volume of purchases increased during the quarter, and the rate of payments was high. Noninterest revenue increased by 10%, reflecting higher interchange fees primarily due to 15% growth in purchase volume. The increase in purchase volume also reflects the continued strategic shift in the portfolio towards higher-volume, rewards-based products, as well as organic growth. CCS added more than one million new accounts in the first quarter, the sixth consecutive quarter of account additions at this level. The decline in revenue from the fourth quarter of 2003 was due to seasonally higher fourth quarter consumer purchases associated with the holiday season.
Operating expense of $605 million increased by 12% from the first quarter and 8% from the fourth quarter of 2003. The increase in expenses from both periods primarily reflected higher marketing expenses and higher severance and related costs, including expenses related to moving certain operations to lower cost locations. The overhead ratio increased to 39% from 37% and 35% in the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively. The increase in the overhead ratio from the first quarter of last year was primarily attributed to increased marketing costs to attract and retain customers. The increase from the fourth quarter of last year primarily reflects lower seasonal revenue as well as increased marketing costs.
Credit costs increased by 2% from the first quarter of 2003 and declined by 11% from the fourth quarter of 2003. Credit quality improved, with the managed net charge-off rate declining to 5.80% in the first quarter of 2004 from 5.95% in the first quarter of 2003. The decline in credit costs from the fourth quarter reflected a decrease in the allowance for loan losses. The managed net charge-off rate increased from 5.76% in the fourth quarter of 2003, due primarily to seasonality associated with higher delinquencies in the second half of last year. The 30+ day delinquency rate improved from first and fourth quarter levels.
Chase Auto Finance
Operating expense of $81 million was up 19% from the first quarter and 5% from the fourth quarter of 2003. The increase from the year-ago quarter was driven by higher compensation expense, due to volume growth and corresponding increases in staff, and higher performance-based incentives. The increase from the fourth quarter of 2003 was driven primarily by continued portfolio growth, higher compensation expense and slightly higher technology costs. The overhead ratio increased to 49% in the first quarter, up from 34% and 37% in the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively, primarily due to the reduction in leasing revenue and higher expenses.
Credit costs of $36 million decreased by 47% from the first quarter and 12% from the fourth quarter of 2003, due to lower net charge-offs and a lower allowance for loan losses as a result of improved credit quality. The net charge-off rate was 0.36% in the first quarter of 2004, down from 0.48% in the first quarter and 0.39% in the fourth quarter of 2003. The 30+ day delinquency rate decreased to 1.10% in the first quarter of 2004, from 1.27% in the first quarter and 1.46% in the fourth quarter of 2003. The 30+ day delinquency rate was the lowest since June 30, 2002.
Chase Regional Banking
Operating revenue of $635 million increased by 1% from the first quarter of 2003 and decreased by 3% from the fourth quarter of 2003. Despite lower spreads, growth in average deposits of 10% from the first quarter of 2003 resulted in Net interest income being up slightly. The decline in revenue from the fourth quarter of 2003 was due to narrower spreads and lower noninterest revenue
47
related to seasonal declines in deposit service fees, and lower debit card and investment revenues. Average deposits increased by 4% from the fourth quarter of 2003.
Operating expense was up 10% from the comparable 2003 period and down 2% from the fourth quarter of 2003. The increase from the prior-year quarter reflected higher severance and related costs primarily due to restructuring, and higher compensation costs. The decrease from the fourth quarter of 2003 was primarily related to the timing of marketing and professional services expenses. The overhead ratio for the quarter was 100%, up from 91% and 99% in the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively. The increase from the first quarter of 2003 was due to higher expenses, while the increase from the fourth quarter was due to lower revenue.
Credit costs of $28 million were up from $8 million and $18 million, respectively, in the first and fourth quarters of 2003. The increase from the prior-year quarter was the result of a higher allowance for loan losses. The increase from the fourth quarter of 2003 was due to a higher allowance for loan losses, partially offset by lower net charge-offs.
As of March 31, 2004, CRB’s deposit mix was 18% demand, 14% interest checking, 47% savings, 11% money market and 10% time (CDs). At March 31, 2003, the deposit mix was 18% demand, 14% interest checking, 46% savings, 9% money market and 13% time (CDs). As of March 31, 2004, core deposits (total deposits less time deposits) grew by 13% from March 31, 2003, and 4% from December 31, 2003.
Chase Middle Market
Operating revenue of $343 million decreased by 5% from the first quarter and 4% from the fourth quarter of 2003. The decrease from the year-ago quarter was primarily due to lower Net interest income, driven by a 4% decrease in average loans and narrower loan and deposit spreads, partially offset by an 11% increase in average deposits. The decrease from the fourth quarter was due to lower Net interest income, reflecting narrower loan and deposit spreads, partially offset by a 2% increase in average loans and a 9% increase in average deposits.
Operating expenses of $219 million in the quarter were up 1% from the first quarter and 4% from the fourth quarter of 2003. The increase from the first quarter of 2003 was driven by higher performance-based incentives, partially offset by lower severance and related costs. The increase from the fourth quarter was driven by higher incentives and higher severance and related costs. The overhead ratio for the quarter was 64%, up from 60% and 59% in the first and fourth quarters of 2003, respectively, due to the decline in revenue and increase in expenses.
Lower net charge-offs and a reduction in the allowance for loan losses compared with the first and fourth quarters of 2003 resulted in credit costs of negative $13 million.
48
CHASE FINANCIAL SERVICESQUARTERLY BUSINESS-RELATED METRICS
49
The Support Units and Corporate sector includes technology, legal, audit, finance, human resources, risk management, real estate management, procurement, executive management and marketing groups within Corporate. For a further discussion of the business profiles of these Support Units as well as a description of Corporate, see page 44 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2003 Annual Report.
Support Units and Corporate reflects the application of the Firm’s management accounting policies at the corporate level. These policies allocate the costs associated with technology, operational and staff support services to the business segments, with the intent to recover all expenditures associated with these services. Other items are retained within Support Units and Corporate based on policy decisions, such as the over/under allocation of average allocated capital, the residual component of credit costs and taxes. Business segment revenues are reported on a tax-equivalent basis, with the offset reflected in Support Units and Corporate; see Note 22 on pages 22–23 of this Form 10-Q.
For the first quarter of 2004, Support Units and Corporate reported operating earnings of $44 million, compared with an operating loss of $61 million in the first quarter of 2003 and operating earnings of $176 million in the fourth quarter of 2003. Operating earnings in the first quarter of 2004 were driven primarily by higher capital and lower credit costs.
In allocating the allowance (and provision) for credit losses, each business is responsible for its credit costs. Although the Support Units and Corporate sector has no traditional credit assets, the residual component of the allowance, which is available for losses in any business segment, is maintained at the corporate level. For a further discussion of the residual component, see Summary of changes in the Allowance for credit losses on pages 65–66 of this Form 10-Q.
Average allocated capital was $8.6 billion higher than in the first quarter of 2003 and $2.3 billion higher than in the fourth quarter, reflecting a reduction in credit risk capital allocated to the business segments and an increase in common stockholders’ equity.
The Firm’s operating expenses reflected a shift of $115 million from Compensation and Other expense to Technology and communications expense due to the technology infrastructure outsourcing that took effect on April 1, 2003. For additional disclosure, see Results of operations on page 28–29 of this Form 10-Q.
RISK AND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
50
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
Economic risk capital:
Capital also is assessed against business units for certain nonrisk factors. Businesses are assessed capital equal to 100% of any goodwill and 50% for certain other intangibles generated through acquisitions. Additionally, the Firm assesses an “asset capital tax” against managed assets and some off–balance sheet instruments. These assessments recognize that certain minimum regulatory capital ratios must be maintained by the Firm. JPMorgan Chase also estimates the portfolio effect on required economic capital, based on correlations of risk across risk categories. This estimated diversification benefit leads to a reduction in required economic capital for the Firm.
The Firm’s capital in excess of that which is internally required as of March 31, 2004, increased by $8.8 billion over March 31, 2003. The change was primarily due to an increase in average common stockholders’ equity of $3.9 billion, a $5.6 billion reduction in credit risk capital and a $0.8 billion reduction in private equity capital, partially offset by a $1.4 billion increase in market risk capital. The decrease in credit risk capital from the prior year was primarily due to a reduction in commercial exposures and improvement in the credit quality of the commercial portfolio. Private equity risk decreased primarily as a result of the reduction in JPMP’s private equity portfolio. Market risk capital increased, due to growth in the MSR portfolio in CHF as well as higher average trading VAR in IB.
Regulatory capital
51
During 2003, the Firm adopted FIN 46 and, as a result, deconsolidated the trusts that issue trust preferred securities. If banking regulators were to exclude these securities from Tier 1 capital, it could significantly reduce the Tier 1 capital ratio of the Firm. On July 2, 2003, the Federal Reserve Board issued a supervisory letter instructing banks and bank holding companies to continue to include trust preferred securities in Tier 1 capital. Based on the terms of this letter and in consultation with the Federal Reserve Board, the Firm continues to include its trust preferred securities in Tier 1 capital.
Stock repurchase
Dividends
LIQUIDITY MANAGEMENT
Consistent with its liquidity management policy, the Firm has raised funds at the holding company sufficient to cover maturing obligations over the next 12 months. Long-term funding needs for the parent holding company over the next several quarters are expected to be consistent with prior periods. The Firm manages its liquidity through a combination of short- and long-term sources of funds to support its balance sheet and its businesses. Under the Firm’s liquidity risk management framework, the Firm maintains sufficient levels of long-term liquidity through a combination of long-term debt, preferred stock, common equity and core deposits to support the less liquid assets on its balance sheet. The Firm’s primary source of short-term funds, excluding unsecured borrowings, includes more than $40 billion of securities available for repurchase agreements and approximately $30 billion of credit card, automobile and mortgage loans available for securitization.
Credit ratings
Upon the announcement of the proposed merger with Bank One, Moody’s and Fitch placed the ratings of the Firm under review for possible upgrade, while S&P affirmed the Firm’s ratings.
The cost and availability of unsecured financing are influenced by credit ratings. A reduction in these ratings could adversely impact the Firm’s access to liquidity sources, increase the cost of funds, trigger additional collateral requirements and decrease the number of investors and counterparties willing to lend. If the Firm’s ratings were downgraded by one notch, the Firm estimates that the incremental cost of funds to be in the range of 5 basis points to 30 basis points, reflecting a range of terms from three to five years, and the potential loss of funding to be negligible. Additionally, the Firm estimates the additional funding requirements for SPE and
52
other third-party commitments to be relatively modest. In the current environment, the Firm believes the likelihood of a downgrade is remote. For additional information on the impact of a credit ratings downgrade on funding requirements for SPEs, and on derivatives and collateral agreements, see Off-balance Sheet Arrangements below and page 61, respectively, of this Form 10-Q.
Balance sheet
Issuance
Off–balance Sheet Arrangements
For certain liquidity commitments to SPEs, the Firm could be required to provide funding if the credit rating of JPMorgan Chase Bank were downgraded below specific levels, primarily P-1, A-1 and F1 for Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch, respectively. The amount of these liquidity commitments was $32.3 billion at March 31, 2004. If JPMorgan Chase Bank were required to provide funding under these commitments, the Firm could be replaced as liquidity provider. Additionally, with respect to the multi-seller conduits and structured commercial loan vehicles for which JPMorgan Chase Bank has extended liquidity commitments, the Bank could facilitate the sale or refinancing of the assets in the SPE in order to provide liquidity.
Of its $32.3 billion in liquidity commitments to SPEs, $31.1 billion is included in the Firm’s total Other unfunded commitments to extend credit, included in the table on the following page. As a result of the consolidation of multi-seller conduits in accordance with FIN 46, $1.2 billion of these commitments are excluded from the table, as the underlying assets of the SPE have been included on the Firm’s Consolidated balance sheet.
The following table summarizes certain revenue information related to VIEs with which the Firm has significant involvement, and qualifying SPEs:
The revenue reported in the table above primarily represents servicing and custodial fee income. The Firm also has exposure to certain VIE vehicles arising from derivative transactions with VIEs; these transactions are recorded at fair value on the Firm’s Consolidated balance sheet with changes in fair value (i.e., mark-to-market gains and losses) recorded in Trading revenue. Such MTM gains and losses are not included in the revenue amounts reported in the table above.
53
The following table summarizes JPMorgan Chase’s off–balance sheet lending-related financial instruments by remaining maturity at March 31, 2004:
The Firm assesses its consumer credit exposure on a managed basis, including credit card securitizations. For a reconciliation of credit costs on an operating, or managed, basis to reported results, see pages 30–32 of this Form 10-Q.
The Firm allocates credit risk capital to the lines of business based upon its assessment of “economic credit exposure,” a non-GAAP financial measure that, in the Firm’s view, represents actual future credit exposure. The principal difference between The Firm’s credit exposure on a reported basis and its economic view of credit exposure relates to the way the Firm views its credit exposure to derivative receivables and lending-related commitments. For further information, refer to pages 60 and 62 of this Form 10-Q.
54
Commercial and consumer credit portfolio
55
JPMorgan Chase’s total credit exposure (including $34 billion of securitized credit cards) totaled $718 billion at March 31, 2004, a decline from $731 billion at year-end 2003. The decrease reflected a 7% reduction in commercial exposure, offset by a 4% increase in consumer exposure.
Below are summaries of the maturity and ratings profiles of the commercial portfolio as of March 31, 2004, and December 31, 2003. The ratings scale is based on the Firm’s internal risk ratings and is presented on an S&P-equivalent basis.
56
As of March 31, 2004, the commercial exposure ratings profile remained relatively stable compared with December 31, 2003.
Commercial Exposure – selected industry concentrationThe Firm continues to focus on the management and diversification of its industry concentrations, with particular attention paid to industries with actual or potential credit concerns. The only significant change in reported industry exposure since December 31, 2003, relates to the Firm’s exposure to Commercial banks, which decreased by $19 billion, or 40%, from December 31, 2003, to $28 billion as of March 31, 2004. The decline was primarily the result of the Firm’s election to net cash received under credit support annexes to legally enforceable master netting agreements, which affected derivative receivables. A significant portion of the Firm’s derivatives portfolio is transacted with customers in the commercial banking industry.
57
Commercial Criticized ExposureExposures deemed criticized generally represent a ratings profile similar to a rating of CCC+/Caa1 and lower, as defined by Standard & Poors/Moody’s. Continuing the trend experienced during 2003, the criticized component of the portfolio declined by $1.5 billion, or 17%, during the first quarter of 2004. The decrease was due to debt repayments and facility upgrades as a result of client recapitalizations, additional security and collateral taken in refinancings, client upgrades from improved financial performance and a lack of migration of new exposures into the portfolio. Also contributing to the decrease were gross charge-offs of $0.2 billion.
Enron-related exposureThe Firm’s exposure to Enron and Enron-related entities was reduced from $609 million at December 31, 2003, to $545 million at March 31, 2004. The decrease was primarily due to the reduction of debtor-in-possession financing. At March 31, 2004, secured exposure of $207 million is performing and reported on an amortized cost basis.
Country ExposureThe selection of countries is based on the materiality of the Firm’s exposure and its view of actual or potentially adverse credit conditions. Exposure amounts are adjusted for credit enhancements (e.g., guarantees and letters of credit) provided by third parties located outside the country if the enhancements fully cover the country risk, as well as the commercial risk. In addition, the benefit of collateral, credit derivatives used to manage commercial exposure, and short debt or equity trading positions are taken into account. Total exposure includes exposure to both government and private-sector entities in a country.
The exposure to Brazil was $2.4 billion and $2.0 billion at March 31, 2004, and December 31, 2003, respectively. The exposure to Mexico was $2.4 billion and $1.5 billion at March 31, 2004, and December 31, 2003, respectively. The increase in exposure to Brazil and Mexico over the prior year-end was due to trading positions, both cross-border and local.
The Firm’s exposures to other countries disclosed in JPMorgan Chase’s 2003 Annual Report have had immaterial changes in exposure since year-end 2003. Likewise, during the quarter, the credit conditions in these countries remained stable or improved.
58
Derivative ContractsFor a further discussion of the derivative contracts utilized by JPMorgan Chase in connection with its trading and end-user activities, see Note 19 of this Form 10-Q, and pages 58–61 and Note 28 on pages 116–117 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2003 Annual Report.
The following table summarizes the aggregate notional amounts and the reported derivative receivables (i.e., the MTM or fair value of the derivative contracts after taking into account the effects of legally enforceable master netting agreements) at each of the dates indicated:
Notional amounts and derivative receivables MTM
The $36 trillion of notional principal of the Firm’s derivative contracts outstanding at March 31, 2004, significantly exceeds, in the Firm’s view, the possible credit losses that could arise from such transactions. For most derivative transactions, the notional principal amount does not change hands; it is simply used as a reference to calculate payments. In terms of current credit risk exposure, the appropriate measure of risk is, in the Firm’s view, the MTM value of the contract. The MTM exposure represents the cost to replace the contracts at current market rates should the counterparty default. When JPMorgan Chase has more than one transaction outstanding with a counterparty, and a legally enforceable master netting agreement exists with the counterparty, the MTM exposure, less collateral held, represents, in the Firm’s view, the appropriate measure of current credit risk with that counterparty as of the reporting date. At March 31, 2004, the MTM value of derivative receivables (after taking into account the effects of legally enforceable master netting agreements and the impact of net cash received under credit support annexes to such legally enforceable master netting agreements) was $59 billion. Further, after taking into account $10 billion of other highly liquid collateral held by the Firm, the net current MTM credit exposure was $49 billion. As of March 31, 2004, based on the MTM value of its derivative receivables and after taking into account the effects of legally enforceable master netting agreements and collateral held, the Firm did not have a concentration to any single derivative receivable counterparty greater than 5%.
While useful as a current view of credit exposure, the net MTM value of derivative receivables does not capture the potential future variability of that credit exposure. To capture this variability, the Firm calculates, on a client-by-client basis, three measures of potential derivatives-related credit loss: Peak, Derivative Risk Equivalent and Average exposure. These measures all incorporate netting and collateral benefits where applicable. The last measure, Average exposure (“AVG”), is used as the basis for the Firm’s Economic view of its credit exposure, upon which it allocates credit capital to the various lines of business. For more information, see page 53 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2003 Annual Report. The amount of these measures did not change significantly since December 31, 2003.
59
The following table reconciles Derivative receivables on a MTM basis with the Firm’s Economic credit exposure, a non-GAAP financial measure, for the dates indicated:
The MTM value of the Firm’s derivative receivables incorporates a Credit Valuation Adjustment (“CVA”) to reflect the credit quality of counterparties. The CVA was $657 million at March 31, 2004, a slight increase from $635 million at December 31, 2003. The CVA is based on the Firm’s AVG to a counterparty, and on the counterparty’s credit spread in the credit derivatives market. The primary components of changes in CVA are credit spreads, new deal activity or unwinds, and changes in the underlying market environment. For a discussion of the impact of CVA on Trading revenue, see portfolio management activity on page 61 of this Form 10-Q.
The following table summarizes the ratings profile of the Firm’s Consolidated balance sheet derivative receivables MTM, net of cash and other highly liquid collateral, for the dates indicated:
The Firm actively pursues the use of collateral agreements to mitigate counterparty credit risk in derivatives. The percentage of the Firm’s derivatives transactions subject to collateral agreements decreased slightly to 75% as of March 31, 2004, from 78% at December 31, 2003. The Firm held $39 billion of collateral as of March 31, 2004 (including $29 billion of net cash received under credit support annexes to legally enforceable master netting agreements), compared with $36 billion as of December 31, 2003. The Firm posted $28 billion of collateral as of March 31, 2004, compared with $27 billion at the end of 2003.
60
Certain derivative and collateral agreements include provisions that require both the Firm and the counterparty, upon specified downgrades in their respective credit ratings, to post collateral for the benefit of the other party. The impact on required collateral of a single-notch ratings downgrade to JPMorgan Chase Bank, from its current rating of AA- to A+, would have been an additional $1.3 billion of collateral as of March 31, 2004. The impact of a six-notch ratings downgrade to JPMorgan Chase Bank (from AA- to BBB-) would have been $3.9 billion of additional collateral as of March 31, 2004. Certain derivative contracts also provide for termination of the contract, generally upon JPMorgan Chase Bank being downgraded, at the then-existing MTM value of the derivative receivables.
Use of credit derivativesThe following table presents the Firm’s notional amounts of credit derivatives protection bought and sold as of March 31, 2004, and December 31, 2003:
JPMorgan Chase has limited counterparty exposure as a result of credit derivatives transactions. Of the $59 billion of total derivative receivables at March 31, 2004, approximately $3 billion, or 5%, was associated with credit derivatives, before the benefit of highly liquid collateral. The use of credit derivatives to manage exposures does not reduce the reported level of assets on the balance sheet or the level of reported off–balance sheet commitments.
Portfolio management activityIn managing its commercial credit exposure, the Firm purchases single-name and portfolio credit derivatives. As of March 31, 2004, the notional outstanding amount of protection purchased via single-name and portfolio credit derivatives was $35 billion and $2 billion, respectively. The Firm also diversifies its exposures by providing (i.e., selling) small amounts of credit protection, which increases exposure to industries or clients where the Firm has little or no client-related exposure. This activity is not material to the Firm’s overall credit exposure: at March 31, 2004, no credit protection had been sold, and credit protection sold totaled $67 million in notional exposure at December 31, 2003.
The credit derivatives used by JPMorgan Chase for its portfolio management activities do not qualify for hedge accounting under SFAS 133, and therefore, effectiveness testing under SFAS 133 is not performed. These derivatives are marked to market in Trading revenue. The MTM value incorporates both the cost of credit derivative premiums and changes in value due to movement in spreads and credit events, whereas the loans and lending-related commitments being risk managed are accounted for on an accrual basis in Net interest income and assessed for impairment in the Provision for credit losses. This asymmetry in accounting treatment, between loans and lending-related commitments and the credit derivatives utilized in portfolio management activities, causes earnings volatility that is not representative of the true changes in value of the Firm’s overall credit exposure. The MTM treatment of both the Firm’s credit derivatives used for managing credit exposure (“short” credit positions) and the CVA, which reflects the credit quality of derivatives counterparty exposure (“long” credit positions), provides some natural offset.
Additionally, commercial credit exposure is actively managed through secondary loan and commitment sales that are not associated with loan syndication activity or securitization activity as described in Note 11 of this Form 10-Q. During the first quarter of 2004, proceeds from the sale of $774 million of loans and $700 million of commitments resulted in a net loss of $8 million. During the same period in 2003, the sale of $607 million of loans and $450 million of commitments resulted in a net loss of $12 million.
61
Portfolio management activity in the first quarter of 2004 resulted in $58 million of gains included in Trading revenue. These gains included $26 million related to credit derivatives used to manage the Firm’s credit exposure; of this amount, approximately $21 million was associated with credit derivatives used to manage the risk of accrual lending activities, and the remaining was associated with credit derivatives used to manage the overall derivatives portfolio. The gains were driven by a widening of high-yield credit spreads. Additionally, there were $32 million of gains related to the change in the MTM value of the CVA.
Trading revenue from portfolio management in the first quarter of 2003 resulted in losses of $27 million. The losses consisted of $110 million related to credit derivatives used to manage the Firm’s credit exposure; of this amount, $71 million was associated with credit derivatives used to manage the risk of accrual lending activities, and the remaining was associated with credit derivatives used to manage the risk of the overall derivatives portfolio. The losses were due to an overall global tightening of credit spreads. These losses were offset by $83 million in gains resulting from a decrease in the MTM value of the CVA, the result of spread tightening.
Dealer client activityAs of March 31, 2004, the total notional amounts of protection purchased and sold by the dealer business were both $293 billion. Although the notional amounts were equal as of March 31, 2004, at other times there may be mismatches between these amounts. The mismatch would be the result of the Firm selling protection on large, diversified, predominantly investment-grade portfolios (including the most senior tranches) and then hedging these positions by buying protection on the more subordinated tranches of the same portfolios. In addition, the Firm may use securities to hedge certain derivative positions. Consequently, while there could be a mismatch in notional amounts of credit derivatives, in the Firm’s view, the risk positions are largely matched.
Lending-related commitmentsThe contractual amount of commercial lending-related commitments was $218 billion at March 31, 2004, compared with $216 billion at December 31, 2003. In the Firm’s view, the total contractual amount of these instruments is not representative of the Firm’s actual credit risk exposure or funding requirements. In determining the amount of credit risk exposure the Firm has to commercial lending-related commitments, which is used as the basis for allocating credit-risk capital to these instruments, the Firm has established a “loan equivalent” amount for each commitment; this represents the portion of the unused commitment or other contingent exposure that is likely, based on average portfolio historical experience, to become outstanding in the event of a default by an obligor.
The following table reconciles the reported contractual amounts of the Firm’s lending-related commitments on a GAAP basis with the Firm’s Economic credit exposure, a non-GAAP financial measure, as of the dates indicated:
62
The following discussion relates to the specific loan and lending-related commitment categories within the consumer portfolio:
Residential Mortgages: Residential mortgage loans are primarily secured by first mortgages and were $75.9 billion at March 31, 2004, a $2.2 billion increase from year-end 2003. At March 31, 2004, the Firm had $2.6 billion of sub-prime residential mortgage loans, of which $2.1 billion were held for sale. At December 31, 2003, sub-prime residential mortgage loans outstanding were $1.9 billion, of which $1.4 billion were held for sale. Lending-related commitments on 1–4 family residential mortgages increased by $6.9 billion, or 24%, due to new business.
Credit Cards: JPMorgan Chase analyzes its credit card portfolio on a managed basis, which includes credit card receivables on the Consolidated balance sheet and those that have been securitized. Managed credit card receivables were approximately $50.5 billion at March 31, 2004, a decrease of 2% compared with year-end 2003. The lower amount of receivables primarily reflects seasonal factors. Lending-related commitments on credit cards increased by $5.0 billion, or 4%, due to new business.
Automobile Financings: Automobile financings increased by $423 million at March 31, 2004, when compared with year-end 2003. This increase was driven by originations of $6.8 billion during the first quarter of 2004, a 24% increase over originations in the fourth quarter of 2003.
Other Consumer: Other consumer loans of $7.4 billion at March 31, 2004, increased by 3% compared with year-end levels.
63
Commercial and consumer nonperforming exposure and net charge-offs
The following table presents a summary of credit-related nonperforming, past due and net charge-off information for the dates indicated:
64
$102 million, including $82 million of recoveries, compared with $292 million of net charge-offs for the three months ended March 31, 2003. The charge-off rate for commercial loans was 0.50% for the first quarter of 2004, compared with 0.04% for the fourth quarter of 2003 and 1.32% for the first quarter of 2003. Commercial net charge-offs in 2004 are expected to decline, but at a slower pace than the decline experienced in the second half of 2003.
For Credit Card loans on a reported basis, the net charge-off rate for the first quarter of 2004 was 6.30%, compared with 6.17% for the first quarter of 2003 and down from 6.66% for the fourth quarter of 2003. Although net charge-offs in the first quarter of 2004 were lower than in the prior-year period, the increase in the net charge-off rate was driven by a lower average balance. Likewise, the credit card loan net charge-off rate on the securitized credit card portfolio for the three months ended March 31, 2004, was 5.53%, down from 5.82% in the first quarter of 2003. The decrease was due to an average balance that increased at a rate greater than the increase in net charge-offs during the first quarter of 2004. Management expects consumer net charge-off rates to remain stable for the next several quarters.
Summary of changes in the allowance for credit losses
Overall: The allowance for credit losses decreased from December 31, 2003, to March 31, 2004 reflecting declines across all components of the allowance.
Loans: JPMorgan Chase’s allowance for loan losses is intended to cover probable credit losses as of March 31, 2004, for which either the asset is not specifically identified or the size of the loss has not been fully determined. The allowance has both specific and expected loss components and a residual component. As of March 31, 2004, management deemed the allowance to be adequate (i.e., sufficient to absorb losses that currently may exist but are not yet identifiable). The allowance for loan losses declined by $403 million from year-end 2003 and $1.1 billion from March 31, 2003.
65
The commercial specific loss component of the allowance was $716 million at March 31, 2004, a decrease of $201 million, or 22%, from year-end 2003. The decrease was primarily attributable to reduced credit exposure as well as charge-offs taken.
The commercial expected loss component of the allowance was $411 million at March 31, 2004, a decrease of $43 million, or 9%, from year-end 2003. The decrease reflected improvement in credit quality.
The consumer expected loss component of the allowance was $2.2 billion at March 31, 2004, a decline of $80 million, or 4%, from year-end 2003. The decrease was primarily attributable to reduced credit card balances, which experienced seasonal highs at year-end 2003, as well as lower manufactured housing net charge-off rates.
The residual component of the allowance was $816 million at March 31, 2004, a decrease of $79 million from year-end 2003. The reduction was a result of complying with the Firm’s internal policy of maintaining the residual component within a target range of 10% to 20% of the total allowance, including the residual component. At March 31, 2004, the residual component represented approximately 20% of the total allowance for loan losses. The formula-based commercial specific and expected components do not consider uncertainties in the economic environment or the impact of concentrations in the commercial loan portfolio. These uncertainties are addressed by the residual component of the allowance, which incorporates management’s judgment. If current trends in commercial loan quality continue, the Firm’s policies may require a further reduction in the overall allowance, including the residual component.
Lending-related commitments: To provide for the risk of loss inherent in the Firm’s process of extending credit, management also computes specific and expected loss components, as well as a residual component, for commercial lending-related commitments. These are computed using a methodology similar to that used for the commercial loan portfolio, modified for expected maturities and probabilities of drawdown. This allowance, which is reported in Other liabilities, was $297 million, $324 million and $436 million at March 31, 2004, December 31, 2003, and March 31, 2003, respectively. The allowance for lending-related commitments decreased by $27 million during the three months ended March 31, 2004, due to improvement in the credit quality of the portfolio.
Risk management process
Value-at-Risk
The table below shows trading VAR by risk type. Details of the VAR exposures are discussed in the Trading Risk section below.
Trading VAR by risk type
66
Trading risk
Average trading VAR rose to $105.5 million from $94.5 million in the previous quarter. The increase was driven by a rise in interest rate VAR, primarily due to increased risk positions, greater market volatility and higher correlation between lines of business.
In contrast, period-end VAR declined to $84.0 million at March 31, 2004, from $103.2 million at December 31, 2003, primarily driven by a decrease in interest rate VAR due to reduced risk positions and lower correlation between lines of business.
For a complete discussion of the Firm’s Trading Risk, see page 70 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2003 Annual Report.
VAR backtesting
The Firm’s definition of market risk-related revenue is consistent with the Federal Reserve Board’s implementation of the Basel Committee’s market risk capital rules. The histogram below illustrates the Firm’s daily market risk-related revenue for trading businesses for the first quarter of 2004. The chart shows that the Firm posted positive daily market risk-related revenue on 61 out of 64 days in the first quarter, with five days exceeding $100 million. The inset graph looks at those days on which the Firm experienced trading losses and depicts the amount by which the VAR exceeded the actual loss on each of those days. Losses were sustained on three days, with no loss greater than $10.6 million, below the losses predicted by the VAR measure.
67
Economic-value stress testing
While VAR reflects the risk of loss due to unlikely events in normal markets, stress testing captures the Firm’s exposure to unlikely but plausible events in abnormal markets. JPMorgan Chase performs a number of different scenario-based stress tests monthly. Three corporate-wide stress tests are performed on all business lines with trading activity. Scenarios are continually reviewed and updated to reflect changes in the Firm’s risk profile and economic events.
The following table represents the worst-case potential economic-value stress-test loss (pre-tax) in the Firm’s trading portfolio as predicted by stress-test scenarios:
Trading economic value stress-test loss results – pre-tax
The worst-case results of the three corporate-wide stress tests are shown above. These scenarios are based on historical events and incorporate economic relationships among market prices. The March 11, 2004 and the first quarter 2004 maximum and minimum results are from the “Equity Market Collapse” stress scenario, which is broadly modeled on the events of October 1987. Under this scenario, there is a significant equity sell-off along with a decline in credit prices and interest rates rally in major currencies. Results from March 11 reflect equity cash underwriting and options positions held by the Firm on that date, which led to losses under the “Equity Market Collapse” stress scenario. Positions that drove the stress-test results subsequently declined and were materially lower at the end of the first quarter of 2004.
The December 4, 2003, results are also from the “Equity Market Collapse” scenario. The fourth quarter 2003 maximum and minimum results are from the “Bond Market Collapse” stress scenario. Under this stress scenario, interest rates rise sharply in major currencies, accompanied by moderate credit spread widening and equity price declines. For a further discussion of the Firm’s stress testing methodology, see pages 68-69 of the 2003 Annual Report.
68
The Firm conducts simulations of NII for its nontrading activities under a variety of interest rate scenarios, which are consistent with the scenarios used for economic-value stress testing. NII stress tests measure the potential change in the Firm’s NII over the next 12 months. These stress tests highlight exposures to various rate-sensitive factors, such as the rates themselves (e.g., the prime lending rate), pricing strategies on deposits and changes in product mix. The stress tests also take into account forecasted balance sheet changes, such as asset sales and securitizations, as well as prepayment and reinvestment behavior.
The following table shows the change in the Firm’s NII over the next 12 months that would result from uniform increases or decreases of 100 basis points in all interest rates. For the quarter ended March 31, 2004, JPMorgan Chase’s largest potential NII stress-test loss was estimated at $209 million, primarily the result of increased funding costs associated with a +100 basis-points parallel change. JPMorgan Chase’s NII stress-test loss of $102 million for a - -100 basis-points parallel change is primarily the result of potential compression in deposit spreads associated with a further interest rate decline in a low rate environment.
Nontrading NII stress-test loss results – pre-tax
However, JPMorgan Chase believes that the standard +100/-100 basis-points parallel change stress-test scenarios do not adequately reflect the actual complexity of markets. To that end, the Firm also applies several additional scenarios to test how NII would change in response to unlikely but plausible events in abnormal markets. The worse-case stress-test loss scenario simulates the yield curve and spread changes that occurred during 1994, when the Federal Open Market Committee raised interest rates six times for a total of 250 basis points. This scenario indicates that the Firm’s U.S. dollar NII stress-test loss would be approximately $125 million.
Other statistical and nonstatistical risk measures
Capital allocation for market risk
Risk monitoring and control
69
The Firm’s accounting policies and use of estimates are integral to understanding the reported results. The Firm’s most complex accounting estimates require management’s judgment to ascertain the valuation of assets and liabilities. The Firm has established detailed policies and control procedures intended to ensure that valuation methods, including any judgments made as part of such methods, are well controlled, independently reviewed and applied consistently from period to period. In addition, the policies and procedures are intended to ensure that the process for changing methodologies occurs in an appropriate manner. The Firm believes its estimates for determining the valuation of its assets and liabilities are appropriate. For a further description of the Firm’s critical accounting estimates involving significant management valuation judgments, see pages 74-77 and the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in JPMorgan Chase’s 2003 Annual Report.
Allowance for Credit Losses
Trading and Available-for-Sale Portfolios
MSRs and certain other retained interests
Consolidation of variable interest entities
Impairment of available-for-sale and held-to-maturity securities
70
2004. The Firm does not believe that the application of EITF Issue 03-1 will have a material impact on the Firm’s Consolidated financial statements.
Accounting for certain loans or debt securities acquired in a transfer
Accounting for interest rate lock commitments (“IRLCs”)
Prior to April 1, 2004, JPMorgan Chase recorded IRLCs at estimated fair value. The fair value of IRLCs included an estimate of the value of the loan servicing right inherent in the underlying loan, net of the estimated costs to close the loan. Beginning April 1, 2004, and as a result of SAB 105, there will be no fair value assigned to IRLCs on the date they are entered into, with any initial expected gain being recognized upon the sale of the resultant loan. Also in connection with SAB 105, the Firm will record any changes in the value of the IRLCs excluding the servicing asset component due to changes in interest rates after they are locked. Adopting SAB 105 will not have a material impact on the Firm’s Consolidated financial statements.
Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
The internal control report must include a statement: of management’s responsibility for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting for the Firm; of management’s assessment of the effectiveness of the Firm’s internal control over financial reporting as of year-end; of the framework used by management to evaluate the effectiveness of the Firm’s internal control over financial reporting; and that the Firm’s independent accounting firm has issued an attestation report on management’s assessment of the Firm’s internal control over financial reporting, which report is also required to be filed as part of the Annual Report. The Firm intends to be in compliance with the requirements of Section 404 when they become effective in 2004.
71
J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO.FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS(in millions, except per share data, ratios and employees)
72
J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO.CONSOLIDATED AVERAGE BALANCE SHEET, INTEREST AND RATES(Taxable-Equivalent Interest and Rates; in millions, except rates)
73
AICPA: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
Asset capital tax: Capital allocated to each business segment based on its average asset level and certain off–balance sheet credit-related exposures; reflects the need for the Firm to maintain minimum leverage ratios to meet bank regulatory definitions of “well capitalized.”
Assets under management: Represent assets managed by Investment Management & Private Banking on behalf of institutional, retail and private banking clients.
Assets under supervision: Represent assets under management as well as custody, brokerage, administration and deposit accounts.
Average allocated capital: Represents the portion of average common stockholders’ equity allocated to the business segments, based on their respective risks. The total average allocated capital of all business segments equals the total average common stockholders’ equity of the Firm.
Average goodwill capital: The Firm allocates capital to businesses equal to 100% of the carrying value of goodwill. Average goodwill capital is equal to the average carrying value of goodwill.
Average managed assets: Includes credit card receivables that have been securitized.
Average tangible allocated capital: Average allocated capital less the average capital allocated for goodwill.
bp: Denotes basis points; 100 bp equals 1%.
Credit derivatives are contractual agreements that provide protection against a credit event of one or more referenced credits. The nature of a credit event is established by the protection buyer and protection seller at the inception of a transaction, and such events include bankruptcy, insolvency and failure to meet payment obligations when due. The buyer of the credit derivative pays a periodic fee in return for a payment by the protection seller upon the occurrence, if any, of a credit event.
Credit risk: Risk of loss from obligor or counterparty default.
Criticized: An indication of credit quality based on JPMorgan Chase’s internal risk assessment system. “Criticized” assets generally represent a risk profile similar to a rating of a CCC+/Caa1 or lower, as defined by the independent rating agencies.
EITF: Emerging Issues Task Force.
EITF Issue 03-1: “The Meaning of Other-Than-Temporary Impairment and Its Application to Certain Investments.”
FASB: Financial Accounting Standards Board.
FIN 39: FASB Interpretation No. 39, “Offsetting of Amounts Related to Certain Contracts.”
FIN 45: FASB Interpretation No. 45, “Guarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure Requirement for Guarantees, including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others.”
FIN 46: FASB Interpretation No. 46, “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, an interpretation of Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51.”
Foreign exchange contracts are contracts that provide for the future receipt and delivery of foreign currency at previously agreed-upon terms.
Interest rate options, including caps and floors, are contracts to modify interest rate risk in exchange for the payment of a premium when the contract is initiated. A writer of interest rate options receives a premium in exchange for bearing the risk of unfavorable changes in interest rates. Conversely, a purchaser of an option pays a premium for the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell a financial instrument or currency at predetermined terms in the future.
Investment-grade: An indication of credit quality based on JPMorgan Chase’s internal risk assessment system. “Investment-grade” generally represents a risk profile similar to a rating of a BBB-/Baa3 or better, as defined by independent rating agencies.
Liquidity risk: The risk of being unable to fund a portfolio of assets at appropriate maturities and rates, and the risk of being unable to liquidate a position in a timely manner at a reasonable price.
Managed credit card receivables: Refers to credit card receivables on the Firm’s balance sheet plus credit card receivables that have been securitized.
Mark-to-market exposure: Mark-to-market exposure is a measure, at a point in time, of the value of a derivative or foreign exchange contract in the open market. When the mark-to-market value is positive, it indicates the counterparty owes JPMorgan
74
Part IItem 2 (continued)Chase and, therefore, creates a repayment risk for the Firm. When the mark-to-market value is negative, JPMorgan Chase owes the counterparty. In this situation, the Firm does not have repayment risk.Market risk: The potential loss in value of portfolios and financial instruments caused by movements in market variables, such as interest and foreign exchange rates, credit spreads, and equity and commodity prices.Master netting agreement: An agreement between two counterparties that have multiple derivative contracts with each other that provides for the net settlement of all contracts through a single payment, in a single currency, in the event of default on or termination of any one contract. See FIN 39.NA: Not applicable.Net yield on interest-earning assets: The average rate for interest-earning assets less the average rate paid for all sources of funds.NM: Not meaningful.Operating (Managed) Basis or Operating Earnings: In addition to analyzing the Firm’s results on a reported basis, management looks at results on an “operating basis,” which is a non-GAAP financial measure. The definition of operating basis starts with the reported U.S. GAAP results. In the case of the Investment Bank, the operating basis includes the reclassification of net interest income related to trading activities to Trading revenue. In the case of Chase Financial Services and Chase Cardmember Services, “operating” or “managed” basis excludes the impact of credit card securitizations. These adjustments do not change JPMorgan Chase’s reported net income.Operational risk: The risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed processes or systems, human factors or external events.Other Consumer Loans: Consists of manufactured housing loans, installment loans (direct and indirect types of consumer finance), student loans, unsecured revolving lines of credit and non-U.S. consumer loans.Overhead ratio: Noninterest expense as a percentage of revenue before provision for credit losses.Return on Tangible Allocated Capital: Operating earnings less preferred dividends as a percentage of average allocated capital, excluding the capital allocated for goodwill.SFAS: Statement of Financial Accounting Standards.SFAS 107: “Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments.”SFAS 115: “Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities.”SFAS 123: “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation.”SFAS 133: “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities.”SFAS 140: “Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities – a replacement of FASB Statement No. 125.”Shareholder value added (“SVA”): Represents operating earnings minus preferred dividends and an explicit charge for capital.Six Sigma: Represents a business management approach that enables firms to improve the quality of products and services delivered to clients through understanding client priorities, and then eliminating process defects and failures. “Sigmas” (or standard deviations) are statistical measures of the defects or failures generated by a business process.Staff Accounting Bulletin (“SAB”) 105: “Application of Accounting Principles to Loan Commitments.”Statement of Position (“SOP”) 03-3: “Accounting for Certain Loans or Debt Securities Acquired in a Transfer.”Stress testing: A scenario that measures market risk under unlikely but plausible events in abnormal markets.Tangible shareholder value added: SVA less the impact of goodwill on operating earnings and capital charges.Unaudited: The financial statements and information included throughout this document are unaudited, and have not been subjected to auditing procedures sufficient to permit an independent certified public accountant to express an opinion.U.S. GAAP: Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.Value-at-Risk (“VAR”): A measure of the dollar amount of potential loss from adverse market moves in an ordinary market environment.
75
This Form 10-Q contains statements that are forward-looking within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements are based upon the current beliefs and expectations of JPMorgan Chase’s management and are subject to significant risks and uncertainties. Actual results may differ from those set forth in the forward-looking statements. These uncertainties include: the ability to obtain governmental approvals of the merger on the proposed terms and schedule; the failure of JPMorgan Chase and Bank One stockholders to approve the merger; the risk that the businesses will not be integrated successfully; the risk that the cost savings and any revenue synergies from the merger may not be fully realized or may take longer to realize than expected; the risk that excess capital is not generated from the merger as anticipated or not utilized in an accretive manner; the risk that disruption from the merger may make it more difficult to maintain relationships with clients, employees or suppliers; the risk of adverse movements or volatility in the debt and equity securities markets or in interest or foreign exchange rates or indices; the risk of adverse impacts from an economic downturn; the risk of a downturn in domestic or foreign securities and in trading conditions or markets; the risks involved in deal completion, including an adverse development affecting a customer or the inability by a customer to receive a regulatory approval; the risks associated with increased competition; the risks associated with unfavorable political and diplomatic developments; the risks associated with adverse changes in domestic or foreign governmental or regulatory policies, including adverse interpretations of regulatory guidelines; the risk that material litigation or investigations will be determined adversely to the Firm; the risk that a downgrade in the Firm’s credit ratings will adversely affect the Firm’s businesses or investor sentiment; the risk that management’s assumptions and estimates used in applying the Firm’s critical accounting policies prove unreliable, inaccurate or not predictive of actual results; the risk that the Firm’s business continuity plans or data security systems prove not to be sufficiently adequate; the risk that external vendors are unable to fulfill their contractual obligations to the Firm; the risk that the merger integration will not be successful or that the revenue synergies and cost savings anticipated from the merger may not be fully realized or may take longer to realize than expected; the risk that the integration process may result in the disruption of ongoing business or in the loss of key employees or may adversely affect relationships with employees, clients or suppliers; the risk that the credit, market, liquidity, private equity and operational risks associated with the various businesses of JPMorgan Chase are not successfully managed; or other factors affecting operational plans. Additional factors that could cause results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements can be found in the JPMorgan Chase Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year-ended December 31, 2003, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and available at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s internet site (http://www.sec.gov).
Any forward-looking statements made by or on behalf of the Firm in this Form 10-Q speak only as of the date of this Form 10-Q. JPMorgan Chase does not undertake to update forward-looking statements to reflect the impact of circumstances or events that arise after the date the forward-looking statement was made. The reader should, however, consult any further disclosures of a forward-looking nature JPMorgan Chase may make in its Annual Reports on Form 10-K, its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and its Current Reports on Form 8-K.
Item 3 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 the MD&A on pages 66–69 of this Form 10-Q.
Item 4 Controls and Procedures
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 Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of its disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-14(c) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). See Exhibits 31.1 and 31.2 for the Certification statements issued by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. Based upon that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that the design and operation of these disclosure controls and procedures were effective. No significant changes were made in the Firm’s internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect these controls subsequent to the date of their evaluation.
76
Part IIItem 1
Part II – OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1 Legal ProceedingsEnron litigation. JPMorgan Chase is involved in a number of lawsuits and investigations arising out of its banking relationships with Enron Corp. and its subsidiaries (“Enron”). Pending in London is a lawsuit by the Firm against Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale (“WLB”) seeking to compel payment of $165 million under an Enron-related letter of credit issued by WLB. The trial of that action is scheduled to commence in June 2004.
Actions involving Enron have been initiated by parties against JPMorgan Chase, its directors and certain of its officers. These lawsuits include a series of purported class actions brought on behalf of shareholders of Enron, including the lead action captioned Newby v. Enron Corp., and a series of purported class actions brought on behalf of Enron employees who participated in various employee stock ownership plans, including the lead action captioned Tittle v. Enron Corp. The consolidated complaint filed in Newby names as defendants, among others, JPMorgan Chase, several other investment banking firms, a number of law firms, Enron’s former accountants and affiliated entities, and individuals and other individual defendants, including present and former officers and directors of Enron; it purports to allege claims against JPMorgan Chase and the other defendants under federal and state securities laws. The Tittle complaint named as defendants, among others, JPMorgan Chase, several other investment banking firms, a law firm, Enron’s former accountants and affiliated entities and individuals and other individual defendants, including present and former officers and directors of Enron; it purports to allege claims against JPMorgan Chase and certain other defendants under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and state common law. On December 20, 2002, the Court denied the motion of JPMorgan Chase and other defendants to dismiss the Newby action. On September 30, 2003, Judge Harmon dismissed all claims against JPMorgan Chase in Tittle.
Additional actions include: a purported, consolidated class action lawsuit by JPMorgan Chase stockholders alleging that the Firm issued false and misleading press releases and other public documents relating to Enron in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; a putative class action on behalf of JPMorgan Chase employees who participated in the Firm’s employee stock ownership plans alleging claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and negligence by JPMorgan Chase, its directors and named officers; shareholder derivative actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and alleged failures to exercise due care and diligence by the Firm’s directors and named officers in the management of JPMorgan Chase; individual and putative class actions in various courts by Enron investors, creditors and holders of participating interests related to syndicated credit facilities; third-party actions brought by defendants in Enron-related cases, alleging federal and state law claims against JPMorgan Chase and many other defendants; investigations by governmental agencies with which the Firm is cooperating; and an adversary proceeding brought by Enron in bankruptcy court seeking damages for alleged aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty by Enron insiders, return of alleged fraudulent conveyances and preferences, and equitable subordination of JPMorgan Chase’s claims in the Enron bankruptcy. On July 28, 2003, an examiner appointed in the Enron bankruptcy case filed with the bankruptcy court the third in a series of reports. In this report, the Enron examiner opined that the Enron bankruptcy estate has colorable claims against (among others) JPMorgan Chase, for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties by certain of Enron’s officers with respect to certain transactions involving Enron; for equitable subordination; and for avoidance of allegedly preferential payments made to the Firm. The report acknowledges that any such claims may be subject to certain defenses which could be asserted by JPMorgan Chase.
By joint order of the district court handling Newby, Tittle and a number of other Enron-related cases and the bankruptcy court handling Enron’s bankruptcy case, a mediation among various investors and creditor plaintiffs, the Enron bankruptcy estate and a number of financial institution defendants, including JPMorgan Chase, has been initiated before The Honorable William C. Conner, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York.
On July 28, 2003, the Firm announced that it had reached agreements with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (“FRB”), the New York State Banking Department (“NYSBD”) and the New York County District Attorney’s Office (“NYDA”) resolving matters relating to JPMorgan Chase’s involvement with certain transactions involving Enron. In connection with these settlements, JPMorgan Chase has committed to take certain measures to improve controls with respect to structured finance transactions. The agreement with the FRB and NYSBD, a formal written agreement, requires JPMorgan Chase to adopt programs acceptable to the FRB and the NYSBD for enhancing the Firm’s management of credit risk and legal and reputational risk, particularly in relation to its participation in structured finance transactions.
77
Part IIItem 1 (continued)
WorldCom litigation. J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. (“JPMSI”) and JPMorgan Chase have been named as defendants in more than 50 actions that were filed in U.S. District Courts, in state courts in more than 20 states, and in one arbitral panel beginning in July 2002, arising out of alleged accounting irregularities in the books and records of WorldCom Inc. Plaintiffs in these actions are individual and institutional investors, including state pension funds, who purchased debt securities issued by WorldCom pursuant to public offerings in 1997, 1998, 2000 and 2001. JPMSI acted as an underwriter of the 1998, 2000 and 2001 offerings and was an initial purchaser in the December 2000 private bond offering. In addition to JPMSI, JPMorgan Chase and, in two actions, J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd. (“JPMSL”) in its capacity as one of the underwriters of the international tranche of the 2001 offering, the defendants in various of the actions include other underwriters, certain executives of WorldCom and WorldCom’s auditors. In the actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants knew, or were reckless or negligent in not knowing, that the securities were sold to plaintiffs on the basis of misrepresentations and omissions of material facts concerning the financial condition of WorldCom. The complaints against JPMorgan Chase, JPMSI and JPMSL assert claims under federal and state securities laws, under other state statutes and under common-law theories of fraud and negligent misrepresentation.
Commercial Financial Services litigation. JPMSI (formerly known as Chase Securities Inc.) has been named as a defendant in several actions that were filed in or transferred to the U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts for the Northern District of Oklahoma or filed in Oklahoma state court beginning in October 1999, arising from the failure of Commercial Financial Services, Inc. (“CFSI”). Plaintiffs in these actions are institutional investors who purchased approximately $2.0 billion (original face amount) of asset-backed securities issued by CFSI. The securities were backed by charged-off credit card receivables. In addition to JPMSI, the defendants in various of the actions are the founders and key executives of CFSI, as well as its auditors and outside counsel. JPMSI is alleged to have been the investment bankers to CFSI and to have acted as an initial purchaser and as placement agent in connection with the issuance of certain of the securities. Plaintiffs allege that defendants knew, or were reckless or negligent in not knowing, that the securities were sold to plaintiffs on the basis of misleading misrepresentations and omissions of material facts. The complaints against JPMSI assert claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, under the Oklahoma Securities Act and under common-law theories of fraud and negligent misrepresentation. In the actions against JPMSI, damages in the amount of approximately $1.6 billion, allegedly suffered as a result of defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions, plus punitive damages and interest, are being claimed. CFSI has commenced an action against JPMSI in Oklahoma state court and has asserted claims against JPMSI for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. CFSI alleges that JPMSI failed to detect and prevent its insolvency. CFSI seeks unspecified damages. CFSI has also commenced, in its bankruptcy case, an adversary proceeding against JPMSI and its credit card affiliate, Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., alleging that certain payments, aggregating $78.4 million, made in connection with CFSI’s purchase or securitization of charged-off credit card receivables were constructive fraudulent conveyances, and seeks to recover such payments and interest. A trial date on the adversary proceeding has been set for November 1, 2004.
IPO allocation litigation. Beginning in May 2001, JPMorgan Chase and certain of its securities subsidiaries were named, along with numerous other firms in the securities industry, as defendants in a large number of putative class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. These suits purport to challenge alleged improprieties in the allocation of stock in various public offerings, including some offerings for which a JPMorgan Chase entity served as an underwriter. The suits allege violations of securities and antitrust laws arising from alleged material misstatements and omissions in registration statements and prospectuses for the initial public offerings (“IPOs”) and alleged market manipulation with respect to aftermarket transactions in the offered securities. The securities claims allege, among other things, misrepresentation and market manipulation of the aftermarket trading for these offerings by tying allocations of shares in IPOs to undisclosed excessive commissions paid to JPMorgan Chase and to required aftermarket purchase transactions by customers who received allocations of shares in the respective IPOs, as well as allegations of misleading analyst reports. The antitrust claims allege an illegal conspiracy to require customers, in exchange for IPO allocations, to pay undisclosed and excessive commissions and to make aftermarket purchases of the IPO securities at a price higher than the offering price as a precondition to receiving allocations. On February 13, 2003, the Court denied the motions of JPMorgan Chase and others to dismiss the securities complaints. On November 3, 2003, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the antitrust claims relating to the IPO allocation practices. A separate antitrust claim alleging that JPMSI and the other underwriters conspired to fix their underwriting fees is in discovery.
JPMorgan Chase has also received various subpoenas and informal requests from governmental and other agencies seeking information relating to IPO allocation practices. On February 20, 2003, JPMSI reached a settlement with the National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”) pursuant to which the NASD censured JPMSI and fined it $6 million for activities it found to constitute unlawful profit sharing by Hambrecht & Quist Group in the period immediately prior to and following its acquisition in 2000. In agreeing to the resolution of the charges, JPMSI neither admitted nor denied the NASD’s contentions. In late September JPMSI and the SEC agreed to resolve matters relating to the SEC’s investigation of JPMSI’s IPO allocation practices during 1999 [year], and 2000. The SEC alleged that JPMSI violated Rule 101 of SEC Regulation M in certain “hot” IPOs by attempting to induce certain customers to place aftermarket orders for IPO shares before the IPO was completed. Also, in the case of one IPO, the SEC alleged that JPMSI violated “just and equitable principles of trade” under NASD Conduct Rule 2110 by persuading at least one customer to accept an allocation of shares in a “cold” IPO in exchange for a promise of an allocation of shares in an upcoming IPO
78
that was expected to be oversubscribed. JPMSI neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s allegations, but consented to a judgment (entered October 1, 2003) enjoining JPMSI from future violations of Regulation M and NASD Conduct Rule 2110 and requiring JPMSI to pay a civil penalty of $25 million.
Research analyst conflicts. On December 20, 2002, the Firm reached a settlement agreement in principle with the SEC, the NASD, the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”), the New York State Attorney General’s Office and the North American Securities Administrators Association, on behalf of state securities regulators, to resolve their investigations of JPMorgan Chase relating to research analyst independence. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, JPMorgan Chase, without admitting or denying the allegations concerning alleged conflicts, agreed, among other things: (i) to pay $50 million for retrospective relief, (ii) to adopt internal structural and operational reforms that will further augment the steps it has already taken to ensure the integrity of JPMorgan Chase analyst research, (iii) to contribute $25 million spread over five years to provide independent third-party research to clients and (iv) to contribute $5 million towards investor education. Mutually satisfactory settlement documents have been negotiated and approved by the SEC, the NYSE, the NASD and the Texas State Securities Board. Mutually satisfactory settlement documents have been negotiated and approved by the regulatory authorities in all but a few states, and settlement documents are in the process of being negotiated with the remaining states. On October 31, 2003, the Court entered final judgment pursuant to the settlement with the SEC.
JPMSI has been named as a co-defendant with nine other broker-dealers in two actions involving allegations similar to those at issue in the regulatory investigations: a putative class action filed in federal court in Colorado, seeking an unspecified amount of money damages for alleged violations of federal securities laws; and an action filed in West Virginia state court by West Virginia’s Attorney General, seeking recovery from the defendants in the aggregate of $5,000 for each of what are alleged to be hundreds of thousands of violations of the state’s consumer protection statute. On August 8, 2003, the plaintiffs in the Colorado action dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Motions to dismiss the West Virginia action and to disqualify private counsel retained by the Attorney General to prosecute that action are pending.
JPMSI was served by the SEC, NASD and NYSE on or about May 30, 2003, with subpoenas or document requests seeking information regarding certain present and former officers and employees in connection with a follow-up to the regulatory investigations, this time focusing on whether particular individuals properly performed supervisory functions regarding domestic equity research. The Firm is cooperating with the investigations, which continue.
Litigation reserve and other. During the fourth quarter of 2002, the Firm established a reserve of $900 million related to costs anticipated to be incurred in connection with the various private litigation and regulatory inquiries involving Enron and the other material legal actions, proceedings and investigations discussed above. In the second quarter of 2003, the Firm added $100 million to the reserve related to Enron. Of the $1 billion, $700 million was allocated to the various cases, proceedings and investigations associated with Enron. The balance of $300 million was allocated to the various litigations, proceedings and investigations involving the Firm’s debt and equity underwriting activities and equity research practices. The reserve may be revised in the future. As of March 31, 2004, the Enron-related litigation reserve was $524 million, and the balance of the $300 million set aside at March 31, 2004, was $219 million.
In addition to the various cases, proceedings and investigations for which the reserve has been established, JPMorgan Chase and its subsidiaries are named as defendants in a number of other legal actions and governmental proceedings arising in connection with their respective businesses. Additional actions, investigations or proceedings may be brought from time to time in the future. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of legal matters, particularly where the claimants seek very large or indeterminate damages or where the cases present novel legal theories or involve a large number of parties, the Firm cannot state with confidence what the eventual outcome of the pending matters (including the pending matters for which the reserve has been established) will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters will be or what the eventual loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter may be. Subject to the foregoing caveat, JPMorgan Chase anticipates, based upon its current knowledge, after consultation with counsel and after taking into account its litigation reserves, that the outcome of the legal actions, proceedings and investigations currently pending against it should not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Firm, although the outcome of a particular proceeding or the imposition of a particular fine or penalty may be material to JPMorgan Chase’s operating results for a particular period, depending upon, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability and the level of JPMorgan Chase’s income for that period.
Item 2 Changes in Securities and Use of ProceedsDuring the first quarter of 2004, shares of common stock of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. were issued in transactions exempt from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 pursuant to Section 4(2) thereof. Shares of common stock were issued to retired directors who had deferred receipt of such common stock pursuant to the Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors as follows: January 2, 2004: 5,851 shares. Shares of common stock were issued to retired employees who had deferred receipt of such common shares pursuant to the Corporate Performance Incentive Plan as follows: January 26, 2004: 18,218 shares; February 13, 2004: 1,117 shares; February 20, 2004: 2,918 shares; March 5, 2004: 339 shares; and March 12, 2004: 371 shares.
79
Item 6 Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K
Form 8-K filed January 21, 2004: Press release regarding 2003 fourth quarter and full year results, financial supplement, analyst presentation slides, and the computation of the ratio of earnings to fixed charge.
Form 8-K filed January 28, 2004: Joint press release issued by JPMorgan Chase and Bank One Corporation (“Bank One”) dated January 14, 2004 announcing they have agreed to merge, JPMorgan Chase and Bank One’s Agreement and Plan of the merger dated as of January 14, 2004, and Stock Option Agreements between JPMorgan Chase and Bank One dated January 14, 2004.
Form 8-K filed February 3, 2004: Preliminary unaudited pro forma combined financial information and explanatory notes presenting how the combined financial statements of JPMorgan Chase and Bank One may have appeared had the businesses actually been combined. The preliminary unaudited pro forma combined financial information includes the unaudited pro forma combined balance sheet at September 30, 2003 and the unaudited pro forma combined income statements for the nine months ended September 30, 2003 and the year ended December 31, 2002.
Form 8-K filed March 1, 2004: Bank One’s 2003 Annual Report and the unaudited pro forma combined financial information and explanatory notes of JPMorgan Chase and Bank One, which includes the unaudited pro forma combined balance sheet at December 31, 2003 and the unaudited pro forma combined income statement for the year ended December 31, 2003.
Form 8-K filed March 4, 2004: Consent by KPMG LLP, independent auditors, to Bank One’s reference to KPMG as “experts” in the JPMorgan Chase Prospective Supplement, dated March 2, 2004, included in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-107201).
80
SIGNATURE
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
81
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
SEQUENTIALLY NUMBERED
82