JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) 10-Q 2011 Q1 Quarterly report

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

FORM 10-Q

QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2011       Commission file number1-5805

JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware	13-2624428
(State or other jurisdiction of	(I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)	Identification No.)
270 Park Avenue, New York, New York	10017
(Address of principal executive offices)	(Zip Code)

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

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.

þYeso No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

þYeso No

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

Large accelerated filerþ	Accelerated filero	Non-accelerated filero	Smaller reporting companyo
	(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

oYesþ No

Number of shares of common stock outstanding as of April 30, 2011: 3,973,684,787

FORM 10-Q

TABLE OF CONTENTS

	Page
Part I — Financial information
Item 1 Consolidated Financial Statements – JPMorgan Chase & Co.:
Consolidated Statements of Income (unaudited) for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010		90
Consolidated Balance Sheets (unaudited) at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010		91
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Stockholders’ Equity and Comprehensive Income (unaudited) for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010		92
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (unaudited) for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010		93
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (unaudited)		94
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm		172
Consolidated Average Balance Sheets, Interest and Rates (unaudited) for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010		173
Glossary of Terms and Line of Business Metrics		174
Item 2 Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations:
Consolidated Financial Highlights		3
Introduction		4
Executive Overview		6
Consolidated Results of Operations		11
Explanation and Reconciliation of the Firm’s Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures		13
Business Segment Results		15
International Operations		40
Balance Sheet Analysis		41
Off–Balance Sheet Arrangements		44
Capital Management		49
Risk Management		53
Supervision and Regulation		85
Critical Accounting Estimates Used by the Firm		86
Accounting and Reporting Developments		89
Forward-Looking Statements		180
Item 3 Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk		181
Item 4 Controls and Procedures		181
Part II — Other information
Item 1 Legal Proceedings		181
Item 1A Risk Factors		181
Item 2 Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds		181
Item 3 Defaults Upon Senior Securities		182
Item 5 Other Information		182
Item 6 Exhibits		183
EX-15
EX-31.1
EX-31.2
EX-32
EX-101 INSTANCE DOCUMENT
EX-101 SCHEMA DOCUMENT
EX-101 CALCULATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT
EX-101 LABELS LINKBASE DOCUMENT
EX-101 PRESENTATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT
EX-101 DEFINITION LINKBASE DOCUMENT

2

JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.

CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

(unaudited)
(in millions, except per share, headcount and ratio data)
As of or for the period ended,	1Q11			4Q10			3Q10			2Q10			1Q10
Selected income statement data
Total net revenue	$	25,221		$	26,098		$	23,824		$	25,101		$	27,671
Total noninterest expense		15,995			16,043			14,398			14,631			16,124
Pre-provision profit(a)		9,226			10,055			9,426			10,470			11,547
Provision for credit losses		1,169			3,043			3,223			3,363			7,010
Income before income tax expense		8,057			7,012			6,203			7,107			4,537
Income tax expense		2,502			2,181			1,785			2,312			1,211
Net income	$	5,555		$	4,831		$	4,418		$	4,795		$	3,326
Per common share data
Net income per share: Basic	$	1.29		$	1.13		$	1.02		$	1.10		$	0.75
Diluted		1.28			1.12			1.01			1.09			0.74
Cash dividends declared per share		0.25			0.05			0.05			0.05			0.05
Book value per share		43.34			43.04			42.29			40.99			39.38
Common shares outstanding
Average: Basic		3,981.6			3,917.0			3,954.3			3,983.5			3,970.5
Diluted		4,014.1			3,935.2			3,971.9			4,005.6			3,994.7
Common shares at period-end		3,986.6			3,910.3			3,925.8			3,975.8			3,975.4
Share price(b)
High	$	48.36		$	43.12		$	41.70		$	48.20		$	46.05
Low		42.65			36.21			35.16			36.51			37.03
Close		46.10			42.42			38.06			36.61			44.75
Market capitalization		183,783			165,875			149,418			145,554			177,897
Selected ratios
Return on common equity (“ROE”)		13	%		11	%		10	%		12	%		8	%
Return on tangible common equity (“ROTCE”)		18			16			15			17			12
Return on assets (“ROA”)		1.07			0.92			0.86			0.94			0.66
Overhead ratio		63			61			60			58			58
Deposits-to-loans ratio		145			134			131			127			130
Tier 1 capital ratio		12.3			12.1			11.9			12.1			11.5
Total capital ratio		15.6			15.5			15.4			15.8			15.1
Tier 1 leverage ratio		7.2			7.0			7.1			6.9			6.6
Tier 1 common capital ratio(c)		10.0			9.8			9.5			9.6			9.1
Selected balance sheet data (period-end)
Trading assets	$	501,148		$	489,892		$	475,515		$	397,508		$	426,128
Securities		334,800			316,336			340,168			312,013			344,376
Loans		685,996			692,927			690,531			699,483			713,799
Total assets		2,198,161			2,117,605			2,141,595			2,014,019			2,135,796
Deposits		995,829			930,369			903,138			887,805			925,303
Long-term debt(d)		269,616			270,653			271,495			260,442			278,685
Common stockholders’ equity		172,798			168,306			166,030			162,968			156,569
Total stockholders’ equity		180,598			176,106			173,830			171,120			164,721
Headcount		242,929			239,831			236,810			232,939			226,623
Credit quality metrics
Allowance for credit losses	$	30,438		$	32,983		$	35,034		$	36,748		$	39,126
Allowance for loan losses to total retained loans		4.40	%		4.71	%		4.97	%		5.15	%		5.40	%
Allowance for loan losses to retained loans excluding purchased credit-impaired loans(e)		4.10			4.46			5.12			5.34			5.64
Nonperforming assets	$	14,986		$	16,557		$	17,656		$	18,156		$	19,019
Net charge-offs(f)		3,720			5,104			4,945			5,714			7,910
Net charge-off rate(f)		2.22	%		2.95	%		2.84	%		3.28	%		4.46	%
Wholesale net charge-off rate		0.30			0.49			0.49			0.44			1.84
Consumer net charge-off rate(f)		3.18			4.12			3.90			4.49			5.56

(a)	Pre-provision profit is total net revenue less noninterest expense. The Firm believes that this financial measure is useful in assessing the ability of a lending institution to generate income in excess of its provision for credit losses.
(b)	Share prices shown for JPMorgan Chase’s common stock are from the New York Stock Exchange. JPMorgan Chase’s common stock is also listed and traded on the London Stock Exchange and the Tokyo Stock Exchange.
(c)	The Firm uses Tier 1 common capital (“Tier 1 common”) along with the other capital measures to assess and monitor its capital position. The Tier 1 common capital ratio (“Tier 1 common ratio”) is Tier 1 common divided by risk-weighted assets. For further discussion, see Regulatory capital on pages 49–51 of this Form 10-Q.
(d)	Effective January 1, 2011, the long-term portion of advances from Federal Home Loan Banks (“FHLBs”) was reclassified from other borrowed funds to long-term debt. Prior periods have been revised to conform with the current presentation.
(e)	Excludes the impact of home lending purchased credit-impaired (“PCI”) loans. For further discussion, see Allowance for credit losses on pages 79–81 of this Form 10-Q.
(f)	Net charge-offs and net charge-off rates for the fourth quarter of 2010 include the effect of $632 million of charge-offs related to the estimated net realizable value of the collateral underlying delinquent residential home loans. Because these losses were previously recognized in the provision and allowance for loan losses, this adjustment had no impact on the Firm’s net income.

3

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

This section of the Form 10-Q provides management’s discussion and analysis (“MD&A”) of the financial condition and results of operations of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (“JPMorgan Chase” or the “Firm”). See the Glossary of terms on pages 174–177 for definitions of terms used throughout this Form 10-Q. The MD&A 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 on the current beliefs and expectations of JPMorgan Chase’s management and are subject to significant risks and uncertainties. These risks and uncertainties could cause the Firm’s actual results to differ materially from those set forth in such forward-looking statements. For a discussion of such risks and uncertainties, see Forward-looking Statements on pages 180–181 and Part I, Item 1A, Risk Factors, on pages 5–12 of JPMorgan Chase’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“2010 Annual Report” or “2010 Form 10-K”), to which reference is hereby made.

INTRODUCTION

JPMorgan Chase & Co., a financial holding company incorporated under Delaware law in 1968, is a leading global financial services firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the United States of America (“U.S.”), with $2.2 trillion in assets, $180.6 billion in stockholders’ equity and operations in more than 60 countries as of March 31, 2011. The Firm is a leader in investment banking, financial services for consumers and small business, commercial banking, financial transaction processing, asset management and private equity. Under the J.P. Morgan and Chase brands, the Firm serves millions of customers in the U.S. and many of the world’s most prominent corporate, institutional and government clients.

JPMorgan Chase’s principal bank subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (“JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.”), a national bank with branches in 23 states in the U.S.; and Chase Bank USA, National Association (“Chase Bank USA, N.A.”), a national bank that is the Firm’s credit card issuing bank. JPMorgan Chase’s principal nonbank subsidiary is J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (“JPMorgan Securities”), the Firm’s U.S. investment banking firm.

JPMorgan Chase’s activities are organized, for management reporting purposes, into six business segments, as well as Corporate/Private Equity. The Firm’s wholesale businesses comprise the Investment Bank, Commercial Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management segments. The Firm’s consumer businesses comprise the Retail Financial Services and Card Services segments. A description of the Firm’s business segments, and the products and services they provide to their respective client bases, follows.

Investment Bank

J.P. Morgan is one of the world’s leading investment banks, with deep client relationships and broad product capabilities. The clients of the Investment Bank (“IB”) are corporations, financial institutions, governments and institutional investors. The Firm offers a full range of investment banking products and services in all major capital markets, including advising on corporate strategy and structure, capital-raising in equity and debt markets, sophisticated risk management, market-making in cash securities and derivative instruments, prime brokerage, and research.

Retail Financial Services

Retail Financial Services (“RFS”) serves consumers and businesses through personal service at bank branches and through ATMs, online banking and telephone banking, as well as through auto dealerships and school financial-aid offices. Customers can use nearly 5,300 bank branches (third-largest nationally) and more than 16,200 ATMs (second-largest nationally), as well as online and mobile banking around the clock. More than 29,200 branch salespeople assist customers with checking and savings accounts, mortgages, home equity and business loans, and investments across the 23-state footprint from New York and Florida to California. Consumers also can obtain loans through more than 16,300 auto dealerships and 1,300 schools and universities nationwide.

Card Services

Card Services (“CS”) is one of the nation’s largest credit card issuers, with over $128 billion in loans and over 91 million open accounts. In the three months ended March 31, 2011, customers used Chase cards to meet over $77 billion of their spending needs. Through its merchant acquiring business, Chase Paymentech Solutions, CS is a global leader in payment processing and merchant acquiring.

4

Commercial Banking

Commercial Banking (“CB”) delivers extensive industry knowledge, local expertise and dedicated service to nearly 24,000 clients nationally, including corporations, municipalities, financial institutions and not-for-profit entities with annual revenue generally ranging from $10 million to $2 billion, and nearly 35,000 real estate investors/owners. CB partners with the Firm’s other businesses to provide comprehensive solutions, including lending, treasury services, investment banking and asset management, to meet its clients’ domestic and international financial needs.

Treasury & Securities Services

Treasury & Securities Services (“TSS”) is a global leader in transaction, investment and information services. TSS is one of the world’s largest cash management providers and a leading global custodian. Treasury Services (“TS”) provides cash management, trade, wholesale card and liquidity products and services to small- and mid-sized companies, multinational corporations, financial institutions and government entities. TS partners with IB, CB, RFS and Asset Management businesses to serve clients firmwide. Certain TS revenue is included in other segments’ results. Worldwide Securities Services holds, values, clears and services securities, cash and alternative investments for investors and broker-dealers, and manages depositary receipt programs globally.

Asset Management

Asset Management (“AM”), with assets under supervision of $1.9 trillion, is a global leader in investment and wealth management. AM clients include institutions, retail investors and high-net-worth individuals in every major market throughout the world. AM offers global investment management in equities, fixed income, real estate, hedge funds, private equity and liquidity products, including money-market instruments and bank deposits. AM also provides trust and estate, banking and brokerage services to high-net-worth clients, and retirement services for corporations and individuals. The majority of AM’s client assets are in actively managed portfolios.

5

EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW

This executive overview of MD&A highlights selected information and may not contain all of the information that is important to readers of this Form 10-Q. For a complete description of events, trends and uncertainties, as well as the capital, liquidity, credit and market risks, and the critical accounting estimates affecting the Firm and its various lines of business, this Form 10-Q should be read in its entirety.

Economic environment

The U.S. economic recovery continued in the first quarter of 2011 as the labor market appeared to strengthen, even though disruptive winter weather appeared to slow the economy’s momentum. Despite growing confidence that the U.S. and global economic recovery remains on track, new threats to the global economy emerged that could disrupt activity, at least for a short while. The earthquake and tsunami in Japan represented a significant setback to that country’s important economy and probably disrupted activity elsewhere as well. Furthermore, a surge in oil prices in the wake of political unrest in the Middle East threatened to slow global demand. Concerns about inflation, driven by rising commodity prices, including the impact of widespread crop destruction in 2010 on food prices around the world, resulted in varying actions being taken by several central banks.

The pace of growth in the U.S. economy, which has been unusually slow for a recovery, has been hampered by the depressed housing market. Growth is likely to remain moderate as a result of the planned phase-out of the 2008 fiscal stimulus initiative and additional spending cuts agreed to as part of the final 2011 federal budget plan. The Federal Reserve maintained its accommodative stance in the first quarter of 2011, holding the target range for the federal funds rate steady at zero to one-quarter percent, and continued to indicate that economic conditions were likely to warrant a low federal funds rate for an extended period. To promote a stronger pace of economic recovery, the Federal Reserve also decided to continue expanding its holdings of securities as announced in the fourth quarter of 2010. In particular, the Federal Reserve is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its securities holdings and intends to purchase $600 billion of longer-term Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011. The Federal Reserve downplayed recent commodity pressures as transitory, while noting that it would be monitoring inflation developments carefully.

Financial performance of JPMorgan Chase

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except per share data and ratios)	2011			2010			Change
Selected income statement data
Total net revenue	$	25,221		$	27,671			(9	)%
Total noninterest expense		15,995			16,124			(1	)
Pre-provision profit		9,226			11,547			(20	)
Provision for credit losses		1,169			7,010			(83	)
Net income		5,555			3,326			67
Diluted earnings per share		1.28			0.74			73
Return on common equity		13	%		8	%
Capital ratios
Tier 1 capital		12.3			11.5
Tier 1 common		10.0			9.1

Business overview

JPMorgan Chase reported first-quarter 2011 net income of $5.6 billion, or $1.28 per share, on net revenue of $25.2 billion. Net income was up 67%, compared with net income of $3.3 billion, or $0.74 per share, in the first quarter of 2010. Return on common equity for the quarter was 13%, compared with 8% in the prior year. Current-quarter EPS included a $2.0 billion pretax ($0.29 per share after-tax) benefit from a reduction in the allowance for loan losses for credit card loans; a $1.1 billion pretax ($0.16 per share after-tax) decrease in the fair value of the mortgage servicing rights asset to reflect higher estimated servicing costs to enhance servicing processes (for additional information regarding mortgage servicing rights, see Note 16 on pages 149–152 of this Form 10-Q); and a $650 million pretax ($0.10 per share after-tax) expense for estimated costs of foreclosure-related matters.

The increase in net income for the first quarter of 2011 was driven by a significantly lower provision for credit losses, partially offset by lower net revenue. The decrease in the provision for credit losses reflected improvements in both the consumer and wholesale provisions. The decline in net revenue was due to lower net interest income, reflecting a decline in loan and securities balances, lower mortgage fees and related income in Retail Financial Services and lower securities gains in the Corporate/Private Equity segment. These declines were partially offset by higher investment banking fees in the Investment Bank. Noninterest expense was flat compared with the first quarter of 2010, as lower noncompensation expense offset higher compensation expense.

6

The Firm’s first-quarter results reflected a strong quarter across the Investment Bank and solid performance from Card Services, Commercial Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management. Retail Financial Services demonstrated good underlying performance, as the business continued to invest in building branches and adding to its sales force. However, RFS’ results were more than offset by very high expenses for mortgage-related issues, including the provision for credit losses, the impact of increased servicing costs on the fair value of the Firm’s mortgage servicing rights asset, expense for the estimated costs of foreclosure-related matters, and mortgage repurchase losses.

The continued improvement in the credit environment during the first quarter of 2011 benefited all of JPMorgan Chase’s businesses. Delinquency trends in the consumer businesses were favorable, and lower estimated losses in the credit card portfolio resulted in a reduction in the allowance for credit losses in CS. In addition, net charge-offs were lower in most businesses compared with the prior year. Total firmwide credit reserves at March 31, 2011, were $30.4 billion, resulting in a firmwide loan loss coverage ratio of 4.10% of total loans.

JPMorgan Chase’s balance sheet remained strong, ending the first quarter with a Tier 1 Common ratio of 10.0%. In the quarter, the Firm’s Board of Directors increased the annual dividend to $1.00 per share, up from $0.20 per share, and authorized a new $15 billion multi-year common stock repurchase program, of which up to $8.0 billion of common stock repurchases is approved for 2011. The Firm intends to operate its business with the objectives of maintaining a Basel I Tier 1 Common ratio of at least 9.0% and meeting the Basel III requirements substantially ahead of time. Total stockholders’ equity at March 31, 2011, was $180.6 billion.

The Firm provided credit to and raised capital for its clients of over $450 billion during the quarter. These efforts have a meaningful impact on the communities in which the Firm operates. JPMorgan Chase originated mortgages to over 180,000 people; provided credit cards to approximately 2.6 million people; lent or increased credit to over 7,500 small businesses; lent to over 500 not-for-profit and government entities, including states, municipalities, hospitals and universities; extended or increased loan limits to approximately 1,500 middle-market companies; and lent to or raised capital for more than 3,500 corporations. In addition, the Firm added 16,300 employees over the last twelve months, including more than 9,800 in the U.S. JPMorgan Chase remains committed to helping homeowners and preventing foreclosures. Since the beginning of 2009, the Firm has offered 1,098,000 trial modifications to struggling homeowners, with 324,000 modifications completed.

The discussion that follows highlights the performance of each business segment compared with the prior-year quarter and presents results on a managed basis. For more information about managed basis, as well as other non-GAAP financial measures used by management to evaluate the performance of each line of business, see pages 13–15 of this Form 10-Q.

Investment Banknet income decreased slightly from the prior-year record, reflecting higher noninterest expense, slightly lower net revenue and a lower benefit from the provision for credit losses. Net revenue reflected higher investment banking fees, including record debt underwriting fees, and strong client revenues in Fixed Income and Equity Markets. Credit Portfolio revenue was a loss, primarily reflecting the negative net impact of credit-related valuation adjustments, largely offset by net interest income and fees on retained loans. The provision for credit losses was a smaller benefit in the first quarter of 2011 compared with the first quarter of 2010, reflecting a reduction in the allowance for loan losses, primarily as a result of loan sales and net repayments. Noninterest expense increased, driven by higher compensation expense, partially offset by lower noncompensation expense.

Retail Financial Servicesreported a larger net loss compared with the prior year. Net revenue decreased, driven by lower mortgage fees and related income, lower loan balances due to portfolio runoff, and narrower loan spreads. The provision for credit losses decreased, as delinquency trends and net charge-offs improved compared with the prior year. However, the current-quarter provision continued to reflect elevated losses in the mortgage and home equity portfolios. Noninterest expense increased, due largely to an expense taken for estimated costs of foreclosure-related matters.

Card Servicesreported net income compared with a net loss in the prior year, as a lower provision for credit losses was partially offset by lower net revenue. The decrease in net revenue was driven by a decline in net interest income, reflecting lower average loan balances, the impact of legislative changes and a decreased level of fees. These decreases were largely offset by a decrease in revenue reversals associated with lower net charge-offs. The provision for credit losses decreased from the prior year, reflecting lower net charge-offs and a reduction in the allowance for loan losses due to lower estimated losses. Noninterest expense increased, due to the transfer of the Commercial Card business to CS from TSS and higher marketing expense. Sales volume, excluding the Commercial Card portfolio, was $77.5 billion, an increase of 12% from the prior year.

Commercial Bankingnet income increased, driven by a reduction in the provision for credit losses and higher net revenue. The increase in net revenue was driven by growth in liability balances, wider loan spreads, and growth in loan balances, partially offset by spread compression on liability products. The provision for credit losses decreased from the

7

prior year, reflecting stabilization of the credit quality of the loan portfolio. Noninterest expense increased, primarily reflecting higher headcount-related expense.

Treasury & Securities Servicesnet income increased from the prior year, driven by higher net revenue, largely offset by higher noninterest expense. Worldwide Securities Services net revenue increased, driven by net inflows of assets under custody, higher market levels and higher net interest income. Assets under custody were a record $16.6 trillion, an increase of 9% from the prior year. Treasury Services net revenue increased as well, driven by higher net interest income and higher trade loan volumes, offset by the transfer of the Commercial Card business to CS. Noninterest expense for TSS increased, driven by continued investment in new product platforms, primarily related to international expansion, partially offset by the transfer of the Commercial Card business to CS.

Asset Managementnet income increased from the prior year, reflecting higher net revenue and a lower provision for credit losses, largely offset by higher noninterest expense. The growth in net revenue was driven by the effect of higher market levels, net inflows to products with higher margins and higher loan originations, partially offset by lower performance fees. Assets under supervision increased 12% from the prior year due to the effect of higher market levels and record net inflows to long-term products, partially offset by net outflows in liquidity products. Noninterest expense increased, largely resulting from an increase in headcount.

Corporate/Private Equitynet income increased from the prior year, driven by significantly lower noninterest expense. Noninterest expense in the first quarter of 2010 included significant additions to litigation reserves. Private equity gains increased compared with the prior year, while net interest income and securities gains decreased.

2011 Business outlook

The following forward-looking statements are based on the current beliefs and expectations of JPMorgan Chase’s management and are subject to significant risks and uncertainties. As noted above, these risks and uncertainties could cause the Firm’s actual results to differ materially from those set forth in such forward-looking statements. See Forward-Looking Statements on pages 180-181 and Risk Factors on page 181 of this Form 10-Q.

JPMorgan Chase’s outlook for the remainder of 2011 should be viewed against the backdrop of the global and U.S. economies, financial markets activity, the geopolitical environment, the competitive environment, client activity levels, and regulatory, litigation and legislative developments in the U.S. and other countries where the Firm does business. Each of these linked factors will affect the performance of the Firm and its lines of business. Economic and macroeconomic factors, such as market and credit trends, customer behavior, client business strategies and competition, are all expected to affect the Firm’s businesses.

In the Mortgage Banking, Auto & Other Consumer Lending business within RFS, if mortgage interest rates remain at current levels or rise in the future, management anticipates that loan production and margins will be negatively affected, resulting in lower revenue for this business for full-year 2011 when compared with 2010. In addition, revenue in 2011 will continue to be negatively affected by continued elevated levels of repurchases of mortgages previously sold, predominantly to U.S. government-sponsored entities (“GSEs”). Management estimates that realized repurchase losses could be approximately $1.2 billion on an annualized basis for the remainder of 2011.

The Firm expects noninterest expense in Mortgage Banking, Auto & Other Consumer Lending to remain at the elevated level seen in the first quarter of 2011 (excluding the $650 million expense for foreclosure-related matters) for the remainder of the year reflecting increased servicing costs to enhance its mortgage servicing processes, particularly loan modification and foreclosure procedures, and to comply with the Consent Orders entered into with the banking regulators. (See Note 23 on pages 160–169 of this Form 10-Q for further information about the Consent Orders). In addition to increased noninterest expense resulting from increased servicing costs, it is also likely that the Firm will incur fines and penalties as well as other costs in connection with the settlement of the governmental investigations related to its mortgage servicing procedures.

In the Real Estate Portfolios business within RFS, management believes that, based on the current outlook for delinquencies and loss severity, total quarterly net charge-offs could be approximately $1.2 billion for the remainder of 2011. Given current origination and production levels, combined with management’s current estimate of portfolio runoff levels, the residential real estate portfolio is expected to decline by approximately 10% to 15% annually for the foreseeable future. The annual reduction in the residential real estate portfolio is expected to reduce net interest income in

8

each period, including a reduction of approximately $700 million for full-year 2011 from the 2010 level, assuming no changes in interest rates during the year. However, over time, the reduction in net interest income is expected to be more than offset by an improvement in credit costs and lower expenses. As the portfolio continues to run off, management anticipates that approximately $1.0 billion of capital may become available for redeployment each year, subject to the capital requirements associated with the remaining portfolio.

In CS, management expects end-of-period outstandings for the Chase portfolio (excluding the Washington Mutual and Commercial Card portfolios) to stabilize in the second half of 2011, and that outstandings for such portfolio will be approximately $120 billion by the end of 2011, reflecting a better mix of customers. However, if current high repayment rates persist, outstandings could be lower than $120 billion by the end of 2011. Management estimates that the Washington Mutual portfolio could decline to $10 billion by the end of 2011.

The annual impact of the portfolio runoff will result in an approximately $1.4 billion reduction in net interest income from the 2010 level. Net interest income for 2011 will also be reduced by the full-year impact from implementation of the CARD Act. In addition, if higher repayment rates persist, as noted above, net interest income could also be negatively affected.

Net charge-off rates for both the Chase and Washington Mutual credit card portfolios are anticipated to continue to improve. If current delinquency trends continue, management anticipates the net charge-off rate for the Chase portfolio (excluding the Washington Mutual and Commercial Card portfolios) could be approximately 5.5% for the second quarter of 2011. Furthermore, if current delinquency trends continue, management believes the net charge-off rate for the Chase portfolio could approach 4.5% by the middle of 2012, which management believes represents the “through-the-cycle” net charge off rate for this portfolio.

Management expectations related to future RFS and CS results depend on the health of the U.S. economic environment. Although the positive economic data seen in early 2011 seemed to imply that the U.S. economy is not falling back into recession, high unemployment rates and the difficult housing market have been persistent. Further declines in U.S. housing prices and increases in the unemployment rate remain possible; were this to occur, currently anticipated results for both RFS and CS could be adversely affected.

In IB, TSS and AM, revenue will be affected by market levels, volumes and volatility, which will influence client flows and assets under management, supervision and custody. In addition, IB and CB results will be affected by the credit environment, which will influence levels of charge-offs, repayments and provision for credit losses.

In Private Equity, within the Corporate/Private Equity segment, earnings will likely continue to be volatile and be influenced by capital markets activity, market levels, the performance of the broader economy and investment-specific issues. Corporate’s net interest income levels will generally trend with the size and duration of the investment securities portfolio. Corporate net income, excluding Private Equity, and excluding material litigation expense and significant nonrecurring items, if any, is anticipated to trend toward approximately $300 million per quarter.

Furthermore, continued repositioning of the investment securities portfolio in Corporate, changes in the mix of loans within the consumer loan portfolio and other factors could result in modest downward pressure on the Firm’s net interest margin in the second quarter of 2011.

The Firm faces litigation in its various roles as issuer and/or underwriter in mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) offerings, primarily related to offerings involving third parties other than the GSEs. The Firm separately evaluates its exposure to such litigation in establishing its litigation reserves. It is possible that these matters will take a number of years to resolve; their ultimate resolution is inherently uncertain and reserves for such litigation matters may need to be increased in the future.

Regarding regulatory reform, JPMorgan Chase intends to continue to work with its regulators as they proceed with the extensive rulemaking required to implement financial reform. The Firm will continue to devote substantial resources to achieving implementation of regulatory reforms to meet all the new rules and regulations, both in letter and spirit. The Firm expects to make numerous changes in its business as it implements regulatory reforms in ways that meet the needs and expectations of its customers. In February 2011, the FDIC issued, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, a final rule

9

changing its methodology for calculating the assessment rate. Under the new rule, the assessment base changes from domestic deposits to average consolidated total assets less average tangible equity. These changes became effective on April 1, 2011, and, based on the Firm’s understanding of the final rule, are expected to result in an aggregate annualized increase of approximately $500 million in the assessments that the Firm’s bank subsidiaries pay to the deposit insurance fund.

Management and the Firm’s Board of Directors continually evaluate ways to deploy the Firm’s strong capital base in order to enhance shareholder value. Such alternatives could include the repurchase of common stock, increasing the common stock dividend and pursuing alternative investment opportunities. During the first quarter of 2011, the Firm increased its quarterly dividend to $0.25 per share, an increase of $0.20 per share from the prior-quarter level. The Firm expects to return to a payout ratio of approximately 30% of normalized earnings over time.

In addition, the Board authorized a new $15 billion, multi-year repurchase program for its common stock, of which up to $8.0 billion is approved for 2011. The Firm expects to utilize the repurchase program to, at a minimum, essentially repurchase the same amount of shares that it issues for employee stock-based incentive awards. Beyond this, the Firm intends to repurchase common stock only when it is generating capital in excess of what is needed to fund its organic growth and when, in management’s judgment, such repurchases provide excellent value to the Firm’s existing shareholders. Management and the Board will continue to assess and make decisions regarding alternatives for deploying capital, as appropriate, over the course of the year. Any planned future dividend increases over the current level, or planned use of the repurchase program over the repurchases approved for 2011, will be reviewed by the Firm with its banking regulators before taking action.

10

CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following section provides a comparative discussion of JPMorgan Chase’s Consolidated Results of Operations on a reported basis for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010. Factors that relate primarily to a single business segment are discussed in more detail within that business segment. For a discussion of the Critical Accounting Estimates Used by the Firm that affect the Consolidated Results of Operations, see pages 86–89 of this Form 10-Q and pages 149–154 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Revenue

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011			2010		Change
Investment banking fees	$	1,793		$	1,461		23	%
Principal transactions		4,745			4,548		4
Lending- and deposit-related fees		1,546			1,646		(6	)
Asset management, administration and commissions		3,606			3,265		10
Securities gains		102			610		(83	)
Mortgage fees and related income		(487	)		658	NM
Credit card income		1,437			1,361		6
Other income		574			412		39
Noninterest revenue		13,316			13,961		(5	)
Net interest income		11,905			13,710		(13	)
Total net revenue	$	25,221		$	27,671		(9	)%

Total net revenue for the first quarter of 2011 was $25.2 billion, down by $2.5 billion, or 9%, from the first quarter of 2010. Results were driven by lower net interest income, mortgage fees and related income in RFS, and securities gains in Corporate/Private Equity. These declines were partially offset by higher investment banking fees in IB.

Investment banking fees included record debt underwriting fees and higher advisory fees, related to stronger industry-wide loan syndication and M&A volumes compared with the prior year; these were partially offset by lower equity underwriting fees. For additional information on investment banking fees, which are primarily recorded in IB, see IB segment results on pages 16–19 of this Form 10-Q.

Principal transactions revenue, which consists of revenue from trading and private equity investing activities, increased compared with the first quarter of 2010, driven by higher private equity gains, as a result of continued improvement in market conditions related to certain portfolio investments. Trading revenue, although lower than the record level of the prior year, reflected strong client revenue in IB. For additional information on principal transactions revenue, see IB and Corporate/Private Equity segment results on pages 16–19 and 38–39, respectively, and Note 6 on page 113 of this Form 10-Q.

Lending- and deposit-related fees decreased, reflecting lower deposit-related fees in RFS associated, in part, with legislation on non-sufficient funds and overdraft fees. For additional information on lending- and deposit-related fees, which are mostly recorded in RFS, CB, TSS and IB, see RFS on pages 20–27, CB on pages 30–31, TSS on pages 32–34 and IB segment results on pages 16–19 of this Form 10-Q.

Asset management, administration and commissions revenue increased from the first quarter of 2010. The increase largely reflected higher asset management fees in AM, driven by the effect of higher market levels and net inflows to products with higher margins, partially offset by lower performance fees. Also contributing to the increase were higher administration fees in TSS, reflecting net inflows of assets under custody and the effects of higher market levels; and higher Equity Markets-related commissions revenue in IB. For additional information on these fees and commissions, see the segment discussions for AM on pages 34–37 and TSS on pages 32–34 of this Form 10-Q.

Securities gains decreased from the first quarter of 2010, due to a lower volume of securities sales in the Firm’s investment portfolio. For additional information on securities gains, which are mostly recorded in the Firm’s Corporate segment, see the Corporate/Private Equity segment discussion on pages 38–39 of this Form 10-Q.

Mortgage fees and related income decreased compared with the first quarter of 2010, driven by an MSR risk management loss; this loss reflected a $1.1 billion decrease in the fair value of the MSR asset related to the estimated impact of higher servicing costs to enhance servicing processes, particularly loan modification and foreclosure procedures, and costs to comply with Consent Orders entered into with banking regulators. An increase in production revenue, driven by higher mortgage origination volumes and wider margins, partially offset the decline. For additional information on mortgage fees and related income, which is recorded primarily in RFS, see RFS’s Mortgage Banking, Auto & Other Consumer

11

Lending discussion on pages 23–25 of this Form 10-Q. For additional information on repurchase losses, see the repurchase liability discussion on pages 46–48 and Note 21 on pages 156–159 of this Form 10-Q.

Credit card income increased in the first quarter of 2011, largely reflecting higher customer charge volume on debit and credit cards. For additional information on credit card income, see the CS and RFS segment results on pages 28–30, and pages 20–27, respectively, of this Form 10-Q.

Other income increased compared with the first quarter of 2010, driven by valuation adjustments on certain assets in IB, as well as higher auto operating lease income in RFS, as a result of growth in lease volume.

Net interest income decreased in the first quarter of 2011 compared with the prior year. The decrease was driven by lower yields on securities and lower average securities balances in Corporate, resulting from investment portfolio repositioning; lower average loan balances, primarily in CS and RFS, reflecting the expected runoff of credit card balances and residential real estate loans; and lower fees on credit card receivables, reflecting the impact of legislative changes. The decrease was offset partially by lower revenue reversals associated with lower credit card charge-offs, and higher deposit balances. The Firm’s average interest-earning assets were $1.7 trillion in the first quarter of 2011, and the net yield on those assets, on a fully taxable-equivalent (“FTE”) basis, was 2.89%, a decrease of 43 basis points from the first quarter of 2010. For further information on the impact of the legislative changes on the Consolidated Statements of Income, see CS discussion on Credit Card Legislation on page 79 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Provision for credit losses	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011			2010			Change
Wholesale	$	(386	)	$	(236	)		(64	)%
Consumer, excluding credit card		1,329			3,734			(64	)
Credit card		226			3,512			(94	)
Total consumer		1,555			7,246			(79	)
Total provision for credit losses	$	1,169		$	7,010			(83	)%

The provision for credit losses decreased compared with the first quarter of 2010, due to a decrease in both the consumer and wholesale provisions. The consumer, excluding credit card, provision was down from the prior year, driven by the absence of additions to the allowance for loan losses and lower net charge-offs. The credit card provision was down from the prior year, driven primarily by improved delinquency trends and a reduction in the allowance for loan losses as a result of lower estimated losses. The wholesale provision reflected a higher benefit compared with the prior year, primarily reflecting continued improvement in the credit environment from the prior year. For a more detailed discussion of the loan portfolio and the allowance for credit losses, see the segment discussions for RFS on pages 20–27, CS on pages 28–30, IB on pages 16–19 and CB on pages 30–31, and the Allowance for credit losses section on pages 79–81 of this Form 10-Q.

Noninterest expense

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010		Change
Compensation expense	$	8,263	$	7,276		14	%
Noncompensation expense:
Occupancy		978		869		13
Technology, communications and equipment		1,200		1,137		6
Professional and outside services		1,735		1,575		10
Marketing		659		583		13
Other(a)(b)		2,943		4,441		(34	)
Amortization of intangibles		217		243		(11	)
Total noncompensation expense		7,732		8,848		(13	)
Total noninterest expense	$	15,995	$	16,124		(1	)%

(a)	Included litigation expense of $1.1 billion and $2.9 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
(b)	Included foreclosed property expense of $210 million and $303 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Total noninterest expense for the first quarter of 2011 was $16.0 billion, down slightly from $16.1 billion in the first quarter of 2010. A decrease in noncompensation expense, largely due to lower additions to litigation reserves in the first quarter of 2011, offset the increase in compensation expense.

12

Compensation expense increased from the prior year, predominantly due to higher salary and benefits expense in support of on-going initiatives in IB, as well as additions for sales force and default-related employees in RFS, and front office staff in AM.

The aforementioned decrease in noncompensation expense from the first quarter of 2010 was predominantly related to a net decline in mortgage-related litigation expense (Corporate and IB decreased, partially offset by an increase in RFS). The following items in noncompensation expense were higher in the first quarter of 2011: other expense for the estimated costs of foreclosure-related matters in RFS; professional services expense, due to continued investments in new product platforms in the businesses, including those related to international expansion; occupancy expense, largely reflecting a net increase in charges for excess real estate and higher depreciation expense; marketing expense in CS; and all other expense, reflecting additional operating expense related to business activity in IB. For a further discussion of litigation expense, see the Litigation reserve discussion in Note 23 on pages 160–169 of this Form 10-Q. For a discussion of amortization of intangibles, refer to the Balance Sheet Analysis on pages 41–43, and Note 16 on pages 149–152 of this Form 10-Q.

Income tax expense

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except rate)	2011			2010
Income before income tax expense	$	8,057		$	4,537
Income tax expense		2,502			1,211
Effective tax rate		31.1	%		26.7	%

The increase in the effective tax rate compared with the prior year was primarily the result of higher reported pretax income and changes in the mix of income subject to U.S. federal and state and local taxes, as well as significantly lower tax benefits recognized upon the resolution of tax audits. These factors were partially offset by deferred tax benefits associated with state and local income taxes. For additional information on income taxes, see Critical Accounting Estimates Used by the Firm on pages 86–89 of this Form 10-Q.

EXPLANATION AND RECONCILIATION OF THE FIRM’S USE OF NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES

The Firm prepares its consolidated financial statements using accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. (“U.S. GAAP”); these financial statements appear on pages 90–93 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 tracked consistently from year to year and enables a comparison of the Firm’s performance with other companies’ U.S. GAAP financial statements.

In addition to analyzing the Firm’s results on a reported basis, management reviews the Firm’s results and the results of the lines of business on a “managed” basis, which is a non-GAAP financial measure. The Firm’s definition of managed basis starts with the reported U.S. GAAP results and includes certain reclassifications to present total net revenue for the Firm (and each of the business segments) on a FTE basis. Accordingly, revenue from tax-exempt securities and investments that receive tax credits is presented in the managed results on a basis comparable to taxable securities and investments. This non-GAAP financial measure allows management to assess the comparability of revenue arising from both taxable and tax-exempt sources. The corresponding income tax impact related to tax-exempt items is recorded within income tax expense. These adjustments have no impact on net income as reported by the Firm as a whole or by the lines of business.

Tangible common equity (“TCE”) represents common stockholders’ equity (i.e., total stockholders’ equity less preferred stock) less identifiable intangible assets (other than MSRs) and goodwill, net of related deferred tax liabilities. ROTCE, a non-GAAP financial ratio, measures the Firm’s earnings as a percentage of TCE and is, in management’s view, a meaningful measure to assess the Firm’s use of equity.

Management also uses certain non-GAAP financial measures at the business-segment level, because it believes these other non-GAAP financial measures provide information to investors about the underlying operational performance and trends of the particular business segment and, therefore, facilitate a comparison of the business segment with the performance of its competitors. Non-GAAP financial measures used by the Firm may not be comparable to similarly named non-GAAP financial measures used by other companies.

13

The following summary table provides a reconciliation from the Firm’s reported U.S. GAAP results to managed basis.

	Three months ended March 31, 2011
				Fully
	Reported			tax-equivalent		Managed
(in millions, except per share and ratios)	results			adjustments		basis
Revenue
Investment banking fees	$	1,793		$	—	$	1,793
Principal transactions		4,745			—		4,745
Lending–and deposit–related fees		1,546			—		1,546
Asset management, administration and commissions		3,606			—		3,606
Securities gains		102			—		102
Mortgage fees and related income		(487	)		—		(487	)
Credit card income		1,437			—		1,437
Other income		574			451		1,025
Noninterest revenue		13,316			451		13,767
Net interest income		11,905			119		12,024
Total net revenue		25,221			570		25,791
Noninterest expense		15,995			—		15,995
Pre-provision profit		9,226			570		9,796
Provision for credit losses		1,169			—		1,169
Income before income tax expense		8,057			570		8,627
Income tax expense		2,502			570		3,072
Net income	$	5,555		$	—	$	5,555
Diluted earnings per share	$	1.28		$	—	$	1.28
Return on assets		1.07	%	NM			1.07	%
Overhead ratio		63		NM			62

	Three months ended March 31, 2010
				Fully
	Reported			tax-equivalent		Managed
(in millions, except per share and ratios)	results			adjustments		basis
Revenue
Investment banking fees	$	1,461		$	—	$	1,461
Principal transactions		4,548			—		4,548
Lending–and deposit–related fees		1,646			—		1,646
Asset management, administration and commissions		3,265			—		3,265
Securities gains		610			—		610
Mortgage fees and related income		658			—		658
Credit card income		1,361			—		1,361
Other income		412			411		823
Noninterest revenue		13,961			411		14,372
Net interest income		13,710			90		13,800
Total net revenue		27,671			501		28,172
Noninterest expense		16,124			—		16,124
Pre-provision profit		11,547			501		12,048
Provision for credit losses		7,010			—		7,010
Income before income tax expense		4,537			501		5,038
Income tax expense		1,211			501		1,712
Net income	$	3,326		$	—	$	3,326
Diluted earnings per share	$	0.74		$	—	$	0.74
Return on assets		0.66	%	NM			0.66	%
Overhead ratio		58		NM			57

Average tangible common equity

	Three months ended
	March 31,		December 31,		September 30,		June 30,		March 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010		2010		2010		2010
Common stockholders’ equity	$	169,415	$	166,812	$	163,962	$	159,069	$	156,094
Less: Goodwill		48,846		48,831		48,745		48,348		48,542
Less: Certain identifiable intangible assets		3,928		4,054		4,094		4,265		4,307
Add: Deferred tax liabilities(a)		2,595		2,621		2,620		2,564		2,541
Tangible common equity (TCE)	$	119,236	$	116,548	$	113,743	$	109,020	$	105,786

(a) Represents deferred tax liabilities related to tax-deductible goodwill and to identifiable intangibles created in non-taxable transactions, which are netted against goodwill and other intangibles when calculating TCE.

14

Other financial measures

The Firm also discloses the allowance for loan losses to total retained loans, excluding home lending purchased credit-impaired loans. For a further discussion of this credit metric, see Allowance for credit losses on pages 79–81 of this Form 10-Q.

BUSINESS SEGMENT RESULTS

The Firm is managed on a line of business basis. The business segment financial results presented reflect the current organization of JPMorgan Chase. There are six major reportable business segments: the Investment Bank, Retail Financial Services, Card Services, Commercial Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management, as well as a Corporate/Private Equity segment. The business segments are determined based on the products and services provided, or the type of customer served, and reflect the manner in which financial information is currently evaluated by management. Results of these lines of business are presented on a managed basis.

Description of business segment reporting methodology

Results of the business segments are intended to reflect each segment as if it were essentially a stand-alone business. The management reporting process that derives business segment results allocates income and expense using market-based methodologies. For a further discussion of those methodologies, see Business Segment Results — Description of business segment reporting methodology on pages 67–68 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report. The Firm continues to assess the assumptions, methodologies and reporting classifications used for segment reporting, and further refinements may be implemented in future periods.

Business segment capital allocation changes

Each business segment is allocated capital by taking into consideration stand-alone peer comparisons, economic risk measures and regulatory capital requirements. The amount of capital assigned to each business is referred to as equity. Effective January 1, 2011, capital allocated to CS was reduced and that of TSS was increased. For further information about these capital changes, see Line of business equity on pages 52–53 of this Form 10-Q.

Segment Results – Managed Basis^(a)

The following table summarizes the business segment results for the periods indicated.

Three months ended
March 31,	Total net revenue							Noninterest expense							Pre-provision profit
(in millions, except ratios)	2011		2010		Change			2011		2010		Change			2011		2010			Change
Investment Bank(b)	$	8,233	$	8,319		(1	)%	$	5,016	$	4,838		4	%	$	3,217	$	3,481			(8	)%
Retail Financial Services		6,275		7,776		(19	)		5,262		4,242		24			1,013		3,534			(71	)
Card Services		3,982		4,447		(10	)		1,555		1,402		11			2,427		3,045			(20	)
Commercial Banking		1,516		1,416		7			563		539		4			953		877			9
Treasury & Securities Services		1,840		1,756		5			1,377		1,325		4			463		431			7
Asset Management		2,406		2,131		13			1,660		1,442		15			746		689			8
Corporate/Private Equity(b)		1,539		2,327		(34	)		562		2,336		(76	)		977		(9	)	NM
Total	$	25,791	$	28,172		(8	)%	$	15,995	$	16,124		(1	)%	$	9,796	$	12,048			(19	)%

Three months ended																			Return
March 31,	Provision for credit losses									Net income/(loss)									on equity
(in millions, except ratios)	2011			2010			Change			2011			2010			Change			2011			2010
Investment Bank(b)	$	(429	)	$	(462	)		7	%	$	2,370		$	2,471			(4	)%		24	%		25	%
Retail Financial Services		1,326			3,733			(64	)		(208	)		(131	)		(59	)		(3	)		(2	)
Card Services		226			3,512			(94	)		1,343			(303	)	NM				42			(8	)
Commercial Banking		47			214			(78	)		546			390			40			28			20
Treasury & Securities Services		4			(39	)	NM				316			279			13			18			17
Asset Management		5			35			(86	)		466			392			19			29			24
Corporate/Private Equity(b)		(10	)		17		NM				722			228			217		NM			NM
Total	$	1,169		$	7,010			(83	)%	$	5,555		$	3,326			67	%		13	%		8	%

(a)	Represents reported results on a tax-equivalent basis.
(b)	Corporate/Private Equity includes an adjustment to offset IB’s inclusion of a credit allocation income/(expense) to TSS in total net revenue; TSS reports the credit allocation as a separate line on its income statement (not within total net revenue).

15

INVESTMENT BANK

For a discussion of the business profile of IB, see pages 69—71 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report and Introduction on page 4 of this Form 10-Q.

Selected income statement data	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except ratios)	2011			2010			Change
Revenue
Investment banking fees	$	1,779		$	1,446			23	%
Principal transactions		3,398			3,931			(14	)
Lending- and deposit-related fees		214			202			6
Asset management, administration and commissions		619			563			10
All other income(a)		166			49			239
Noninterest revenue		6,176			6,191			—
Net interest income		2,057			2,128			(3	)
									��
Total net revenue(b)		8,233			8,319			(1	)
Provision for credit losses		(429	)		(462	)		7
Noninterest expense
Compensation expense		3,294			2,928			13
Noncompensation expense		1,722			1,910			(10	)
Total noninterest expense		5,016			4,838			4
Income before income tax expense		3,646			3,943			(8	)
Income tax expense		1,276			1,472			(13	)
Net income	$	2,370		$	2,471			(4	)
Financial ratios
Return on common equity		24	%		25	%
Return on assets		1.18			1.48
Overhead ratio		61			58
Compensation expense as a percentage of total net revenue		40			35
Revenue by business
Investment banking fees:
Advisory	$	429		$	305			41
Equity underwriting		379			413			(8	)
Debt underwriting		971			728			33
Total investment banking fees		1,779			1,446			23
Fixed income markets(c)		5,238			5,464			(4	)
Equity markets(d)		1,406			1,462			(4	)
Credit portfolio(a)(e)		(190	)		(53	)		(258	)
Total net revenue	$	8,233		$	8,319			(1	)

(a)	IB manages credit exposures related to Global Corporate Bank (“GCB”) on behalf of IB and TSS. Effective January 1, 2011, IB and TSS will share the economics related to the Firm’s GCB clients. IB recognizes this sharing agreement within all other income. The prior-year period reflected the reimbursement from TSS for a portion of the total costs of managing the credit portfolio on behalf of TSS.
(b)	Total net revenue included tax-equivalent adjustments, predominantly due to income tax credits related to affordable housing and alternative energy investments as well as tax-exempt income from municipal bond investments of $438 million and $403 million for the quarters ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
(c)	Fixed income markets primarily include revenue related to market-making across global fixed income markets, including foreign exchange, interest rate, credit and commodities markets.
(d)	Equities markets primarily include revenue related to market-making across global equity products, including cash instruments, derivatives, convertibles and Prime Services.
(e)	Credit portfolio revenue includes net interest income, fees and loan sale activity, as well as gains or losses on securities received as part of a loan restructuring, for IB’s credit portfolio. Credit portfolio revenue also includes the results of risk management related to the Firm’s lending and derivative activities. See pages 59—81 of the Credit Risk Management section of this Form 10-Q for further discussion.

16

Quarterly results

Net income was $2.4 billion, down 4% from the prior-year record, reflecting higher noninterest expense, slightly lower net revenue and a lower benefit from the provision for credit losses.

Net revenue was $8.2 billion, compared with $8.3 billion in the prior year. Investment banking fees were $1.8 billion, up 23% from the prior year; these consisted of record debt underwriting fees of $971 million (up 33%), equity underwriting fees of $379 million (down 8%), and advisory fees of $429 million (up 41%). Fixed Income and Equity Markets revenue was $6.6 billion, compared with $6.9 billion in the prior year, reflecting strong client revenues. Credit Portfolio revenue was a loss of $190 million, primarily reflecting the negative net impact of credit-related valuation adjustments largely offset by net interest income and fees on retained loans.

The provision for credit losses was a benefit of $429 million, compared with a benefit of $462 million in the prior year. The current-quarter benefit primarily reflected a reduction in the allowance for loan losses, primarily related to loan sales and net repayments. The ratio of the allowance for loan losses to end-of-period loans retained was 2.52%, compared with 4.91% in the prior year, driven by the improved quality of the loan portfolio. Net charge-offs were $123 million, compared with net charge-offs of $697 million in the prior year.

Noninterest expense was $5.0 billion, up 4% from the prior year driven by higher compensation expense, partially offset by lower noncompensation expense.

ROE was 24% on $40.0 billion of allocated capital.

17

Selected metrics	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except headcount and ratios)	2011			2010			Change
Selected balance sheet data (period-end)
Loans:
Loans retained(a)	$	52,712		$	53,010			(1	)%
Loans held-for-sale and loans at fair value		5,070			3,594			41
Total loans		57,782			56,604			2
Equity		40,000			40,000			—
Selected balance sheet data (average)
Total assets	$	815,828		$	676,122			21
Trading assets—debt and equity instruments		368,956			284,085			30
Trading assets—derivative receivables		67,462			66,151			2
Loans:
Loans retained(a)		53,370			58,501			(9	)
Loans held-for-sale and loans at fair value		3,835			3,150			22
Total loans		57,205			61,651			(7	)
Adjusted assets(b)		611,038			506,635			21
Equity		40,000			40,000			—
Headcount		26,494			24,977			6
Credit data and quality statistics
Net charge-offs	$	123		$	697			(82	)
Nonperforming assets:
Nonaccrual loans:
Nonaccrual loans retained(a)(c)		2,388			2,459			(3	)
Nonaccrual loansheld-for-sale and loans at fair value		259			282			(8	)
Total nonperforming loans		2,647			2,741			(3	)
Derivative receivables		21			363			(94	)
Assets acquired in loan satisfactions		73			185			(61	)
Total nonperforming assets		2,741			3,289			(17	)
Allowance for credit losses:
Allowance for loan losses		1,330			2,601			(49	)
Allowance for lending-related commitments		424			482			(12	)
Total allowance for credit losses		1,754			3,083			(43	)
Net charge-off rate(a)(d)		0.93	%		4.83	%
Allowance for loan losses to period-end loans retained(a)(d)		2.52			4.91
Allowance for loan losses to nonaccrual loans retained(a)(c)(d)		56			106
Nonaccrual loans to period-end loans		4.58			4.84
Market risk—average trading and credit portfolio VaR — 95% confidence level
Trading activities:
Fixed income	$	49		$	69			(29	)
Foreign exchange		11			13			(15	)
Equities		29			24			21
Commodities and other		13			15			(13	)
Diversification(e)		(38	)		(49	)		22
Total trading VaR(f)		64			72			(11	)
Credit portfolio VaR(g)		26			19			37
Diversification(e)		(7	)		(9	)		22
Total trading and credit portfolio VaR	$	83		$	82			1

(a)	Loans retained included credit portfolio loans, leveraged leases and other accrual loans, and excluded loans held-for-sale and loans at fair value.
(b)	Adjusted assets, a non-GAAP financial measure, equals total assets minus: (1) securities purchased under resale agreements and securities borrowed less securities sold, not yet purchased; (2) assets of consolidated variable interest entities (“VIEs”); (3) cash and securities segregated and on deposit for regulatory and other purposes; (4) goodwill and intangibles; (5) securities received as collateral. The amount of adjusted assets is presented to assist the reader in comparing IB’s asset and capital levels to other investment banks in the securities industry. Asset-to-equity leverage ratios are commonly used as one measure to assess a company’s capital adequacy. IB believes an adjusted asset amount that excludes the assets discussed above, which were considered to have a low risk profile, provides a more meaningful measure of balance sheet leverage in the securities industry.
(c)	Allowance for loan losses of $567 million and $811 million were held against these nonaccrual loans at March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
(d)	Loans held-for-sale and loans at fair value were excluded when calculating the allowance coverage ratio and net charge-off rate.

18

(e)	Average value-at-risk (“VaR”) was less than the sum of the VaR of the components described above, which is due to portfolio diversification. The diversification effect reflects the fact that the risks were not perfectly correlated. The risk of a portfolio of positions is therefore usually less than the sum of the risks of the positions themselves.
(f)	Trading VaR includes substantially all trading activities in IB, including the credit spread sensitivities of certain mortgage products and syndicated lending facilities that the Firm intends to distribute; however, particular risk parameters of certain products are not fully captured, for example, correlation risk. Trading VaR does not include the debit valuation adjustments (“DVA”) taken on derivative and structured liabilities to reflect the credit quality of the Firm. See VaR discussion on pages 81–84 and the DVA Sensitivity table on page 84 of this Form 10-Q for further details.
(g)	Credit portfolio VaR includes the derivative credit valuation adjustments (“CVA”), hedges of the CVA and mark-to-market (“MTM”) hedges of the retained loan portfolio, which are all reported in principal transactions revenue. This VaR does not include the retained loan portfolio, which is not MTM.

According to Dealogic, for the first three months of 2011, the Firm was ranked #1 in Investment Banking fees generated based on revenue, and #1 in Global Announced M&A; #1 in Global Syndicated Loans; #3 in Global Debt, Equity and Equity-related; #3 in Global Long-Term Debt; and #7 in Global Equity and Equity-related, based on volume.

	Three months ended March 31, 2011					Full-year 2010
Market shares and rankings(a)	Market Share			Rankings		Market Share			Rankings
Global investment banking fees(b)		8.6	%		#1		7.6	%		#1
Debt, equity and equity-related
Global		6.6			3		7.2			1
U.S.		11.8			1		11.1			1
Syndicated loans
Global		12.3			1		8.5			1
U.S.		24.5			1		19.3			2
Long-term debt(c)
Global		6.7			3		7.2			2
U.S.		11.8			1		10.9			2
Equity and equity-related
Global(d)		5.7			7		7.3			3
U.S.		9.5			4		12.6			2
Announced M&A(e)
Global		26.8			1		16.3			3
U.S.		44.5			1		23.0			3

(a)	Source: Dealogic. Global Investment Banking fees reflects ranking of fees and market share. Remainder of rankings reflects transaction volume rank and market share.
(b)	Global IB fees exclude money market, short-term debt and shelf deals.
(c)	Long-term debt tables include investment-grade, high-yield, supranationals, sovereigns, agencies, covered bonds, asset-backed securities (“ABS”) and mortgage-backed securities; and exclude money market, short-term debt, and U.S. municipal securities.
(d)	Equity and equity-related rankings include rights offerings and Chinese A-Shares.
(e)	Global announced M&A is based on transaction value at announcement; all other rankings are based on transaction proceeds, with full credit to each book manager/equal if joint. Because of joint assignments, market share of all participants will add up to more than 100%. M&A for year-to-date 2011 and full-year 2010 reflects the removal of any withdrawn transactions. U.S. announced M&A represents any U.S. involvement ranking.

International metrics	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010		Change
Total net revenue:(a)
Asia/Pacific	$	1,122	$	988		14	%
Latin America/Caribbean		327		310		5
Europe/Middle East/Africa		2,592		2,875		(10	)
North America		4,192		4,146		1
Total net revenue	$	8,233	$	8,319		(1	)
Loans (period-end):(b)
Asia/Pacific	$	5,472	$	6,195		(12	)
Latin America/Caribbean		2,190		2,035		8
Europe/Middle East/Africa		14,059		12,510		12
North America		30,991		32,270		(4	)
Total loans	$	52,712	$	53,010		(1	)

(a)	Regional revenues are based primarily on the domicile of the client and/or location of the trading desk.
(b)	Includes retained loans based on the domicile of the customer. Excludes loans held-for-sale and loans at fair value.

19

RETAIL FINANCIAL SERVICES

For a discussion of the business profile of RFS, see pages 72-78 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report and Introduction on page 4 of this Form 10-Q.

Selected income statement data	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except ratios)	2011			2010			Change
Revenue
Lending- and deposit-related fees	$	746		$	841			(11	)%
Asset management, administration and commissions		487			452			8
Mortgage fees and related income		(489	)		655		NM
Credit card income		537			450			19
Other income		364			354			3
Noninterest revenue		1,645			2,752			(40	)
Net interest income		4,630			5,024			(8	)
Total net revenue(a)		6,275			7,776			(19	)
Provision for credit losses		1,326			3,733			(64	)
Noninterest expense
Compensation expense		1,971			1,770			11
Noncompensation expense		3,231			2,402			35
Amortization of intangibles		60			70			(14	)
Total noninterest expense		5,262			4,242			24
Income/(loss) before income tax expense/(benefit)		(313	)		(199	)		(57	)
Income tax expense/(benefit)		(105	)		(68	)		(54	)
Net income/(loss)	$	(208	)	$	(131	)		(59	)
Financial ratios
Return on common equity		(3	)%		(2	)%
Overhead ratio		84			55
Overhead ratio excluding core deposit intangibles(b)		83			54

(a)

Total net revenue included tax-equivalent adjustments associated with tax-exempt loans to municipalities and other qualified entities of $3 million and $5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

(b)

RFS uses the overhead ratio (excluding the amortization of core deposit intangibles (“CDI”)), a non-GAAP financial measure, to evaluate the underlying expense trends of the business. Including CDI amortization expense in the overhead ratio calculation would result in a higher overhead ratio in the earlier years and a lower overhead ratio in later years; this method would therefore result in an improving overhead ratio over time, all things remaining equal. The non-GAAP ratio excluded Retail Banking’s CDI amortization expense related to prior business combination transactions of $60 million and $70 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Quarterly results

Retail Financial Services reported a net loss of $208 million, compared with a net loss of $131 million in the prior year.

Net revenue was $6.3 billion, a decrease of $1.5 billion, or 19%, compared with the prior year. Net interest income was $4.6 billion, down by $394 million, or 8%, reflecting the impact of lower loan balances due to portfolio runoff and narrower loan spreads. Noninterest revenue was $1.6 billion, down by $1.1 billion, or 40%, driven by lower mortgage fees and related income.

The provision for credit losses was $1.3 billion, a decrease of $2.4 billion from the prior year. While delinquency trends and net charge-offs improved compared with the prior year, the current-quarter provision continued to reflect elevated losses in the mortgage and home equity portfolios. See page 71 of this Form 10-Q for the net charge-off amounts and rates. To date, no charge-offs have been recorded on PCI loans.

Noninterest expense was $5.3 billion, an increase of $1.0 billion, or 24%, from the prior year.

20

Selected metrics	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except headcount and ratios)	2011			2010			Change
Selected balance sheet data (period-end)
Assets	$	355,394		$	382,475			(7	)%
Loans:
Loans retained		308,827			339,002			(9	)
Loans held-for-sale and loans at fair value(a)		12,234			11,296			8
Total loans		321,061			350,298			(8	)
Deposits		380,494			362,470			5
Equity		28,000			28,000			—
Selected balance sheet data (average)
Assets	$	364,266		$	393,867			(8	)
Loans:
Loans retained		312,543			342,997			(9	)
Loans held-for-sale and loans at fair value(a)		17,519			17,055			3
Total loans		330,062			360,052			(8	)
Deposits		372,634			356,934			4
Equity		28,000			28,000			—
Headcount		123,550			112,616			10
Credit data and quality statistics
Net charge-offs	$	1,326		$	2,438			(46	)
Nonaccrual loans:
Nonaccrual loans retained		8,499			10,769			(21	)
Nonaccrual loans held-for-sale and loans at fair value		150			217			(31	)
Total nonaccrual loans(b)(c)(d)		8,649			10,986			(21	)
Nonperforming assets(b)(c)(d)		9,905			12,191			(19	)
Allowance for loan losses		16,453			16,200			2
Net charge-off rate(e)		1.72	%		2.88	%
Net charge-off rateexcluding PCI loans(e)(f)		2.23			3.76
Allowance for loan losses to ending loans retained(e)		5.33			4.78
Allowance for loan losses to ending loans retainedexcluding PCI loans(e)(f)		4.84			5.16
Allowance for loan losses to nonaccrual loans retained(b)(e)(f)		135			124
Nonaccrual loans to total loans		2.69			3.14
Nonaccrual loans to total loans excluding PCI loans(b)		3.46			4.05

(a)	Loans at fair value consist of prime mortgages originated with the intent to sell that are accounted for at fair value and classified as trading assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. These loans totaled $12.0 billion and $8.4 billion at March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Average balances of these loans totaled $17.4 billion and $14.2 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
(b)	Excludes PCI loans that were acquired as part of the Washington Mutual transaction, which are accounted for on a pool basis. Since each pool is accounted for as a single asset with a single composite interest rate and an aggregate expectation of cash flows, the past-due status of the pools, or that of the individual loans within the pools, is not meaningful. Because the Firm is recognizing interest income on each pool of loans, they are all considered to be performing.
(c)	Certain of these loans are classified as trading assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(d)	At March 31, 2011 and 2010, nonperforming assets excluded: (1) mortgage loans insured by U.S. government agencies of $9.8 billion and $10.5 billion, respectively, that are accruing at the guaranteed reimbursement rate; (2) real estate owned insured by U.S. government agencies of $2.3 billion and $707 million, respectively; and (3) student loans that are 90 days or more past due and still accruing, which are insured by U.S. government agencies under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (“FFELP”), of $615 million and $581 million, respectively. These amounts were excluded as reimbursement of insured amounts is proceeding normally.
(e)	Loans held-for-sale and loans accounted for at fair value were excluded when calculating the allowance coverage ratio and the net charge-off rate.
(f)	Excludes the impact of PCI loans that were acquired as part of the Washington Mutual transaction. These loans were accounted for at fair value on the acquisition date, which incorporated management’s estimate, as of that date, of credit losses over the remaining life of the portfolio. An allowance for loan losses of $4.9 billion and $2.8 billion was recorded for these loans at March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, which was also excluded from the applicable ratios. To date, no charge-offs have been recorded for these loans.

21

RETAIL BANKING

Selected income statement data	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except ratios)	2011			2010			Change
Noninterest revenue	$	1,756		$	1,702			3	%
Net interest income		2,659			2,635			1
Total net revenue		4,415			4,337			2
Provision for credit losses		119			191			(38	)
Noninterest expense		2,802			2,577			9
Income before income tax expense		1,494			1,569			(5	)
Net income	$	891		$	898			(1	)
Overhead ratio		63	%		59	%
Overhead ratio excluding core deposit intangibles(a)		62			58

(a) Retail Banking uses the overhead ratio (excluding the amortization of CDI), a non-GAAP financial measure, to evaluate the underlying expense trends of the business. Including CDI amortization expense in the overhead ratio calculation would result in a higher overhead ratio in the earlier years and a lower overhead ratio in later years; this method would therefore result in an improving overhead ratio over time, all things remaining equal. The non-GAAP ratio excluded Retail Banking’s CDI amortization expense related to prior business combination transactions of $60 million and $70 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Quarterly results

Retail Bankingreported net income of $891 million, flat compared with the prior year. Net revenue was $4.4 billion, up 2% from the prior year. The increase was driven by higher debit card and investment sales revenue, largely offset by lower deposit-related fees. Retail Banking net charge-offs were $119 million, compared with $191 million in the prior year. Noninterest expense was $2.8 billion, up 9% from the prior year, resulting from sales force increases and new branch builds.

Selected metrics	Three months ended March 31,
(in billions, except ratios and where otherwise noted)	2011			2010			Change
Business metrics
Business banking origination volume (in millions)	$	1,425		$	905			57	%
End-of-period loans owned		17.0			16.8			1
End-of-period deposits:
Checking	$	137.4		$	123.8			11
Savings		176.3			163.4			8
Time and other		44.0			53.2			(17	)
Total end-of-period deposits		357.7			340.4			5
Average loans owned	$	16.9		$	16.9			—
Average deposits:
Checking	$	132.0		$	119.7			10
Savings		171.1			158.6			8
Time and other		45.0			55.6			(19	)
Total average deposits		348.1			333.9			4
Deposit margin		2.92	%		3.02	%
Average assets	$	28.7		$	28.9			(1	)
Credit data and quality statistics (in millions, except ratio)
Net charge-offs	$	119		$	191			(38	)
Net charge-off rate		2.86	%		4.58	%
Nonperforming assets	$	822		$	872			(6	)
Retail branch business metrics
Investment sales volume (in millions)	$	6,584		$	5,956			11
Number of:
Branches		5,292			5,155			3
ATMs		16,265			15,549			5
Personal bankers		21,875			19,003			15
Sales specialists		7,336			6,315			16
Active online customers (in thousands)		18,318			16,208			13
Checking accounts (in thousands)		26,622			25,830			3

22

MORTGAGE BANKING, AUTO & OTHER CONSUMER LENDING

Selected income statement data	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except ratio)	2011			2010			Change
Noninterest revenue	$	(119	)	$	1,018		NM
Net interest income		815			893			(9	)%
Total net revenue		696			1,911			(64	)
Provision for credit losses		131			217			(40	)
Noninterest expense		2,105			1,246			69
Income/(loss) before income tax expense/(benefit)		(1,540	)		448		NM
Net income/(loss)	$	(937	)	$	257		NM
Overhead ratio		302	%		65	%

Quarterly results

Mortgage Banking, Auto & Other Consumer Lendingreported a net loss of $937 million, compared with net income of $257 million in the prior year.

Net revenue was $696 million, a decrease of $1.2 billion, or 64%, from the prior year. Mortgage Banking net revenue was a loss of $114 million, compared with net revenue of $962 million in the prior year. Auto & Other Consumer Lending net revenue was $810 million, down by $139 million, predominantly as a result of the discontinuation of tax refund anticipation lending.

Mortgage Banking net revenue in the first quarter of 2011 included $271 million of net interest income and $104 million of other noninterest revenue, offset by a loss of $489 million for mortgage fees and related income. Mortgage fees and related income comprised $259 million of net production revenue, $489 million of servicing operating revenue and a $1.2 billion MSR risk management loss. Production revenue, excluding repurchase losses, was $679 million, an increase of $246 million, reflecting higher mortgage origination volumes and wider margins. Total production revenue was reduced by $420 million of repurchase losses, compared with repurchase losses of $432 million in the prior year. Servicing operating revenue declined 3% from the prior year. MSR risk management revenue declined by $1.4 billion from the prior year, reflecting a $1.1 billion decrease in the fair value of the MSR asset related to the estimated impact of higher servicing costs to enhance servicing processes.

The provision for credit losses, predominantly related to the student and auto loan portfolios, was $131 million, compared with $217 million in the prior year. Auto loan net charge-offs were $47 million, compared with $102 million in the prior year. Student loan and other net charge-offs were $80 million, compared with $64 million in the prior year.

Noninterest expense was $2.1 billion, up by $859 million, or 69%, from the prior year, driven by $650 million recorded for estimated costs of foreclosure-related matters, as well as an increase in default-related expense for the serviced portfolio.

Selected metrics	Three months ended March 31,
(in billions, except ratios and where otherwise noted)	2011		2010		Change
Business metrics
End-of-period loans owned:
Auto	$	47.4	$	47.4		—	%
Prime mortgage, including option ARMs(a)		14.1		13.7		3
Student and other		14.3		17.4		(18	)
Total end-of-period loans owned		75.8		78.5		(3	)
Average loans owned:
Auto	$	47.7	$	46.9		2
Prime mortgage, including option ARMs(a)		14.0		12.5		12
Student and other		14.4		18.4		(22	)
Total average loans owned(b)		76.1		77.8		(2	)

23

Selected metrics	Three months ended March 31,
(in billions, except ratios and where otherwise noted)	2011			2010			Change
Credit data and quality statistics (in millions, except ratios)
Net charge-offs:
Auto	$	47		$	102			(54	)%
Prime mortgage, including option ARMs		4			6			(33	)
Student and other		80			64			25
Total net charge-offs		131			172			(24	)
Net charge-off rate:
Auto		0.40	%		0.88	%
Prime mortgage, including option ARMs		0.12			0.20
Student and other		2.25			1.64
Total net charge-off rate(b)		0.70			0.93
30+ day delinquency rate(c)(d)(e)		1.59			1.52
Nonperforming assets (in millions)(f)	$	931		$	1,006			(7	)
Origination volume:
Mortgage origination volume by channel
Retail	$	21.0		$	11.4			84
Wholesale(g)		0.2			0.4			(50	)
Correspondent(g)		13.5			16.0			(16	)
CNT (negotiated transactions)		1.5			3.9			(62	)
Total mortgage origination volume		36.2			31.7			14
Student		0.1			1.6			(94	)
Auto		4.8			6.3			(24	)
Application volume:
Mortgage application volume by channel
Retail	$	31.3		$	20.3			54
Wholesale(g)		0.3			0.8			(63	)
Correspondent(g)		13.6			18.2			(25	)
Total mortgage application volume	$	45.2		$	39.3			15
Average mortgage loans held-for-sale and loans at fair value(h)	$	17.5		$	14.5			21
Average assets		128.4			124.8			3
Repurchase reserve (ending)		3.2			1.6			100
Third-party mortgage loans serviced (ending)		955.0			1,075.0			(11	)
Third-party mortgage loans serviced (average)		958.7			1,076.4			(11	)
MSR net carrying value (ending)		13.1			15.5			(15	)
Ratio of MSR net carrying value (ending) to third-party mortgage loans serviced (ending)		1.37	%		1.44	%
Ratio of annualized loan servicing revenue to third-party mortgage loans serviced (average)		0.45			0.42
MSR revenue multiple(i)		3.04x			3.43x
Supplemental mortgage fees and related income details
(in millions)
Net production revenue:
Production revenue	$	679		$	433			57
Repurchase losses		(420	)		(432	)		3
Net production revenue		259			1		NM
Net mortgage servicing revenue:
Operating revenue:
Loan servicing revenue		1,052			1,107			(5	)
Other changes in MSR asset fair value		(563	)		(605	)		7
Total operating revenue		489			502			(3	)
Risk management:
Changes in MSR asset fair value due to inputs or assumptions in model		(751	)		(96	)	NM
Derivative valuation adjustments and other		(486	)		248		NM
Total risk management		(1,237	)		152		NM
Total net mortgage servicing revenue		(748	)		654		NM
Mortgage fees and related income	$	(489	)	$	655		NM

(a)	Predominantly represents prime loans repurchased from Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”) pools, which are insured by U.S. government agencies. See further discussion of loans repurchased from Ginnie Mae pools in Repurchase liability on pages 46–48 of this Form 10-Q.
(b)	For the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, total average loans owned included loans held-for-sale of $133 million and $2.9 billion, respectively. These amounts were excluded when calculating the net charge-off rate.
(c)	At March 31, 2011 and 2010, total end-of-period loans owned included loans held-for-sale of $188 million and $2.9 billion, respectively. These amounts were excluded when calculating the 30+ day delinquency rate.

24

(d)	At March 31, 2011 and 2010, excluded mortgage loans insured by U.S. government agencies of $10.4 billion and $11.2 billion, respectively. These amounts were excluded as reimbursement of insured amounts is proceeding normally.
(e)	At March 31, 2011 and 2010, excluded loans that are 30 days or more past due and still accruing, which are insured by U.S. government agencies under the FFELP, of $1.0 billion and $965 million, respectively. These amounts were excluded as reimbursement of insured amounts is proceeding normally.
(f)	At March 31, 2011 and 2010, nonperforming assets excluded: (1) mortgage loans insured by U.S. government agencies of $9.8 billion and $10.5 billion, respectively, that are accruing at the guaranteed reimbursement rate; (2) real estate owned insured by U.S. government agencies of $2.3 billion and $707 million, respectively; and (3) student loans that are 90 days or more past due and still accruing, which are insured by U.S. government agencies under the FFELP, of $615 million and $581 million, respectively. These amounts were excluded as reimbursement of insured amounts is proceeding normally.
(g)	Includes rural housing loans sourced through brokers and correspondents, which are underwritten under U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines.
(h)	Loans at fair value consist of prime mortgages originated with the intent to sell that are accounted for at fair value and classified as trading assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Average balances of these loans totaled $17.4 billion and $14.2 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
(i)	Represents the ratio of MSR net carrying value (ending) to third-party mortgage loans serviced (ending) divided by the ratio of annualized loan servicing revenue to third-party mortgage loans serviced (average).

REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIOS

Selected income statement data	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except ratio)	2011			2010			Change
Noninterest revenue	$	8		$	32			(75	)%
Net interest income		1,156			1,496			(23	)
Total net revenue		1,164			1,528			(24	)
Provision for credit losses		1,076			3,325			(68	)
Noninterest expense		355			419			(15	)
Income/(loss) before income tax expense/(benefit)		(267	)		(2,216	)		88
Net income/(loss)	$	(162	)	$	(1,286	)		87
Overhead ratio		30	%		27	%

Quarterly results

Real Estate Portfoliosreported a net loss of $162 million, compared with a net loss of $1.3 billion in the prior year. The improvement was driven by a lower provision for credit losses.

Net revenue was $1.2 billion, down by $364 million, or 24%, from the prior year. The decrease was driven by a decline in net interest income as a result of lower loan balances due to portfolio runoff, and narrower loan spreads.

The provision for credit losses was $1.1 billion, compared with $3.3 billion in the prior year. The current-quarter provision reflected a $1.0 billion reduction in net charge-offs driven by improved delinquency trends. Also, the prior-year provision included an addition to the allowance for loan losses of $1.2 billion for the Washington Mutual PCI portfolios.

Noninterest expense was $355 million, down by $64 million, or 15%, from the prior year, reflecting a decrease in foreclosed asset expense.

25

Selected metrics	Three months ended March 31,
(in billions)	2011		2010		Change
Loans excluding PCI loans(a)
End-of-period loans owned:
Home equity	$	85.3	$	97.7		(13	)%
Prime mortgage, including option ARMs		48.5		55.4		(12	)
Subprime mortgage		10.8		13.2		(18	)
Other		0.8		1.0		(20	)
Total end-of-period loans owned	$	145.4	$	167.3		(13	)
Average loans owned:
Home equity	$	86.9	$	99.5		(13	)
Prime mortgage, including option ARMs		49.3		56.6		(13	)
Subprime mortgage		11.1		13.8		(20	)
Other		0.8		1.1		(27	)
Total average loans owned	$	148.1	$	171.0		(13	)
PCI loans(a)
End-of-period loans owned:
Home equity	$	24.0	$	26.0		(8	)
Prime mortgage		16.7		19.2		(13	)
Subprime mortgage		5.3		5.8		(9	)
Option ARMs		24.8		28.3		(12	)
Total end-of-period loans owned	$	70.8	$	79.3		(11	)
Average loans owned:
Home equity	$	24.2	$	26.2		(8	)
Prime mortgage		17.0		19.5		(13	)
Subprime mortgage		5.3		5.9		(10	)
Option ARMs		25.1		28.6		(12	)
Total average loans owned	$	71.6	$	80.2		(11	)
Total Real Estate Portfolios
End-of-period loans owned:
Home equity	$	109.3	$	123.7		(12	)
Prime mortgage, including option ARMs		90.0		102.9		(13	)
Subprime mortgage		16.1		19.0		(15	)
Other		0.8		1.0		(20	)
Total end-of-period loans owned	$	216.2	$	246.6		(12	)
Average loans owned:
Home equity	$	111.1	$	125.7		(12	)
Prime mortgage, including option ARMs		91.4		104.7		(13	)
Subprime mortgage		16.4		19.7		(17	)
Other		0.8		1.1		(27	)
Total average loans owned	$	219.7	$	251.2		(13	)
Average assets	$	207.2	$	240.2		(14	)
Home equity origination volume		0.2		0.3		(33	)

(a) PCI loans represent loans acquired in the Washington Mutual transaction for which a deterioration in credit quality occurred between the origination date and JPMorgan Chase’s acquisition date. These loans were initially recorded at fair value and accrete interest income over the estimated lives of the loans as long as cash flows are reasonably estimable, even if the underlying loans are contractually past due.

Included within Real Estate Portfolios are PCI loans that the Firm acquired in the Washington Mutual transaction. For PCI loans, the excess of the undiscounted gross cash flows expected to be collected over the carrying value of the loans (the “accretable yield”) is accreted into interest income at a level rate of return over the expected life of the loans.

The net spread between the PCI loans and the related liabilities are expected to be relatively constant over time, except for any basis risk or other residual interest rate risk that remains and for certain changes in the accretable yield percentage (e.g., from extended loan liquidation periods and from prepayments). As of March 31, 2011, the remaining weighted-average life of the PCI loan portfolio is expected to be 6.9 years. For further information, see Note 13, PCI loans, on pages 134—136 of this Form 10-Q. The loan balances are expected to decline more rapidly in the earlier years as the most troubled loans are liquidated, and more slowly thereafter as the remaining troubled borrowers have limited refinancing opportunities. Similarly, default and servicing expense are expected to be higher in the earlier years and decline over time as liquidations slow down.

26

To date the impact of the PCI loans on Real Estate Portfolios’ net income has been modestly negative. This is due to the current net spread of the portfolio, the provision for loan losses recognized subsequent to its acquisition, and the higher level of default and servicing expense associated with the portfolio. Over time, the Firm expects that this portfolio will contribute positively to net income.

Credit data and quality statistics	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except ratios)	2011			2010			Change
Net charge-offs excluding PCI loans(a):
Home equity	$	720		$	1,126			(36	)%
Prime mortgage, including option ARMs		161			476			(66	)
Subprime mortgage		186			457			(59	)
Other		9			16			(44	)
Total net charge-offs	$	1,076		$	2,075			(48	)
Net charge-off rate excluding PCI loans(a):
Home equity		3.36	%		4.59	%
Prime mortgage, including option ARMs		1.32			3.41
Subprime mortgage		6.80			13.43
Other		4.56			5.90
Total net charge-off rate excluding PCI loans		2.95			4.92
Net charge-off rate — reported:
Home equity		2.63	%		3.63	%
Prime mortgage, including option ARMs		0.71			1.84
Subprime mortgage		4.60			9.41
Other		4.56			5.90
Total net charge-off rate — reported		1.99			3.35
30+ day delinquency rate excluding PCI loans(b)		6.22	%		7.28	%
Allowance for loan losses	$	14,659		$	14,127			4
Nonperforming assets(c)		8,152			10,313			(21	)
Allowance for loan losses to ending loans retained		6.78	%		5.73	%
Allowance for loan losses to ending loans retained excluding PCI loans(a)		6.68			6.76

(a)	Excludes the impact of PCI loans that were acquired as part of the Washington Mutual transaction. These loans were accounted for at fair value on the acquisition date, which incorporated management’s estimate, as of that date, of credit losses over the remaining life of the portfolio. An allowance for loan losses of $4.9 billion and $2.8 billion was recorded for these loans at March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, which was also excluded from the applicable ratios. To date, no charge-offs have been recorded for these loans.
(b)	At March 31, 2011 and 2010, the delinquency rate for PCI loans was 27.36% and 28.49%, respectively.
(c)	Excludes PCI loans that were acquired as part of the Washington Mutual transaction, which are accounted for on a pool basis. Since each pool is accounted for as a single asset with a single composite interest rate and an aggregate expectation of cash flows, the past-due status of the pools, or that of the individual loans within the pools, is not meaningful. Because the Firm is recognizing interest income on each pool of loans, they are all considered to be performing.

27

CARD SERVICES

For a discussion of the business profile of CS, see pages 79—81 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report and Introduction on page 4 of this Form 10-Q.

Selected income statement data(a)	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except ratios)	2011			2010			Change
Revenue
Credit card income	$	898		$	813			10	%
All other income(b)		(116	)		(55	)		(111	)
Noninterest revenue		782			758			3
Net interest income		3,200			3,689			(13	)
Total net revenue		3,982			4,447			(10	)
Provision for credit losses		226			3,512			(94	)
Noninterest expense
Compensation expense		364			330			10
Noncompensation expense		1,085			949			14
Amortization of intangibles		106			123			(14	)
Total noninterest expense		1,555			1,402			11
Income/(loss) before income tax expense/(benefit)		2,201			(467	)	NM
Income tax expense/(benefit)		858			(164	)	NM
Net income/(loss)	$	1,343		$	(303	)	NM
Financial ratios(a)
Return on common equity		42	%		(8	)%
Overhead ratio		39			32

(a)	Effective January 1, 2011, the commercial card business that was previously in TSS was transferred to CS. There is no material impact on the financial data; the prior period was not revised. The commercial card portfolio is excluded from business metrics and supplemental information where noted.
(b)	Includes the impact of revenue sharing agreements with other JPMorgan Chase business segments.

Quarterly results

Net income was $1.3 billion, compared with a net loss of $303 million in the prior year. The improved results were driven by a lower provision for credit losses, partially offset by lower net revenue.

End-of-period loans were $128.8 billion, a decrease of $20.5 billion, or 14%, from the prior year. Average loans were $132.5 billion, a decrease of $23.3 billion, or 15%, from the prior year. The declines in both end-of-period and average loans were consistent with expected portfolio runoff.

Net revenue was $4.0 billion, a decrease of $465 million, or 10%, from the prior year. Net interest income was $3.2 billion, down by $489 million, or 13%. The decrease in net interest income was driven by lower average loan balances, the impact of legislative changes and a decreased level of fees. These decreases were largely offset by lower revenue reversals associated with lower charge-offs. Noninterest revenue was $782 million, an increase of $24 million, or 3%. The increase was driven by the transfer of the Commercial Card business to CS from TSS in the first quarter of 2011 and higher net interchange income, partially offset by lower revenue from fee-based products.

The provision for credit losses was $226 million, compared with $3.5 billion in the prior year. The current-quarter provision reflected lower net charge-offs and a reduction of $2.0 billion to the allowance for loan losses due to lower estimated losses. The prior-year provision included a reduction of $1.0 billion to the allowance for loan losses. Excluding the Washington Mutual and Commercial Card portfolios, the net charge-off rate¹ was 6.20%, down from 10.54% in the prior year; and the 30-day delinquency rate¹ was 3.25%, down from 4.99% in the prior year. Including the Washington Mutual and Commercial Card portfolios, the net charge-off rate was 6.97% (6.81% including loans held-for-sale), down from 11.75% in the prior year; the 30-day delinquency ratewas 3.57% (3.55% including loans held-for-sale), down from 5.62% in the prior year.

Noninterest expense was $1.6 billion, an increase of $153 million, or 11%, due to the transfer of the Commercial Card business and higher marketing expense.

1. Includes loans held-for-sale, which are non-GAAP financial measures, to provide more meaningful measures that enable comparability with the prior period.

28

Selected metrics	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except headcount, ratios and where otherwise noted)	2011			2010			Change
Financial ratios(a)
Percentage of average loans:
Net interest income		9.79	%		9.60	%
Provision for credit losses		0.69			9.14
Noninterest revenue		2.39			1.97
Risk adjusted margin(b)		11.49			2.43
Noninterest expense		4.76			3.65
Pretax income/(loss) (“ROO”)		6.73			(1.22	)
Net income/(loss)		4.11			(0.79	)
Business metrics, excluding Commercial Card(a)
Sales volume (in billions)	$	77.5		$	69.4			12	%
New accounts opened		2.6			2.5			4
Open accounts		91.9			88.9			3
Merchant acquiring business
Bank card volume (in billions)	$	125.7		$	108.0			16
Total transactions (in billions)		5.6			4.7			19
Selected balance sheet data (period-end)(a)
Loans(c)	$	128,803		$	149,260			(14	)
Equity		13,000			15,000			(13	)
Selected balance sheet data (average)(a)
Total assets	$	138,113		$	156,968			(12	)
Loans(d)		132,537			155,790			(15	)
Equity		13,000			15,000			(13	)
Headcount(e)		21,774			22,478			(3	)
Credit quality statistics — retained(a)
Net charge-offs	$	2,226		$	4,512			(51	)
Net charge-off rate(d)(f)		6.97	%		11.75	%
Delinquency rates(c)
30+ day		3.57			5.62
90+ day		1.93			3.15
Allowance for loan losses	$	9,041		$	16,032			(44	)
Allowance for loan losses to period-end loans(c)		7.24	%		10.74	%
Supplemental information(a)(g)(h)
Chase, excluding Washington Mutual portfolio
Loans (period-end)	$	116,395		$	132,056			(12	)
Average loans		119,411			137,183			(13	)
Net interest income(i)		9.09	%		8.86	%
Risk adjusted margin(b)(i)		10.28			2.43
Net charge-off rate		6.13			10.54
30+ day delinquency rate		3.22			4.99
90+ day delinquency rate		1.71			2.74
Chase, excluding Washington Mutual and Commercial Card portfolios
Loans (period-end)	$	115,016		$	132,056			(13	)
Average loans		118,145			137,183			(14	)
Net interest income(i)		9.25	%		8.86	%
Risk adjusted margin(b)(i)		10.21			2.43
Net charge-off rate		6.20			10.54
30+ day delinquency rate		3.25			4.99
90+ day delinquency rate		1.73			2.74

(a)	Effective January 1, 2011, the commercial card business that was previously in TSS was transferred to CS. There is no material impact on the financial data; the prior period was not revised. The commercial card portfolio is excluded from business metrics and supplemental information where noted.
(b)	Represents total net revenue less provision for credit losses.
(c)	Total period-end loans include loans held-for-sale of $4.0 billion at March 31, 2011. There were no loans held-for-sale at March 31, 2010. No allowance for loan losses was recorded for these loans. Loans held-for-sale are excluded when calculating the allowance for loan losses to period-end loans and delinquency rates. The 30+ day delinquency rate including loans held-for-sale, which is a non-GAAP financial measure, was 3.55% at March 31, 2011. The 90+ day delinquency rate including loans held-for-sale, which is a non-GAAP financial measure, was 1.92% at March 31, 2011.
(d)	Total average loans include loans held-for-sale of $3.0 billion for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. There were no loans held-for-sale for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. This amount is excluded when calculating the net charge-off rate. The net charge-off rate including loans held-for-sale, which is a non-GAAP financial measure, was 6.81% for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.
(e)	The first quarter of 2011 headcount includes 1,274 employees related to the transfer of the commercial card business from TSS to CS.
(f)	Results for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 reflect the impact of fair value accounting adjustments related to the consolidation of the Washington Mutual Master Trust (“WMMT”) in the second quarter of 2009.
(g)	Supplemental information is provided for Chase, excluding Washington Mutual and Commercial Card portfolios and including loans held-for-sale, which are non-GAAP financial measures, to provide more meaningful measures that enable comparability with prior periods.

29

(h)	For additional information on loan balances, delinquency rates, and net charge-off rates for the Washington Mutual portfolio, see Consumer Credit Portfolio on pages 70—78, and Note 13 on pages 122—138 of this Form 10-Q.
(i)	As a percentage of average loans.

COMMERCIAL BANKING

For a discussion of the business profile of CB, see pages 82—83 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report and Introduction on page 5 of this Form 10-Q.

Selected income statement data	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except ratios)	2011			2010			Change
Revenue
Lending- and deposit-related fees	$	264		$	277			(5	)%
Asset management, administration and commissions		35			37			(5	)
All other income(a)		203			186			9
Noninterest revenue		502			500			—
Net interest income		1,014			916			11
Total net revenue(b)		1,516			1,416			7
Provision for credit losses		47			214			(78	)
Noninterest expense
Compensation expense		223			206			8
Noncompensation expense		332			324			2
Amortization of intangibles		8			9			(11	)
Total noninterest expense		563			539			4
Income before income tax expense		906			663			37
Income tax expense		360			273			32
Net income	$	546		$	390			40
Revenue by product
Lending(c)	$	837		$	658			27
Treasury services(c)		542			638			(15	)
Investment banking		110			105			5
Other		27			15			80
Total Commercial Banking revenue	$	1,516		$	1,416			7
IB revenue, gross(d)	$	309		$	311			(1	)
Revenue by client segment
Middle Market Banking	$	755		$	746			1
Commercial Term Lending		286			229			25
Corporate Client Banking(e)		290			263			10
Real Estate Banking		88			100			(12	)
Other		97			78			24
Total Commercial Banking revenue	$	1,516		$	1,416			7
Financial ratios
Return on common equity		28	%		20	%
Overhead ratio		37			38

(a)	CB client revenue from investment banking products and commercial card transactions is included in all other income.
(b)	Total net revenue included tax-equivalent adjustments from income tax credits related to equity investments in designated community development entities that provide loans to qualified businesses in low-income communities as well as tax-exempt income from municipal bond activity of $65 million and $45 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
(c)	Effective January 1, 2011, product revenue from commercial card and standby letters of credit transactions is included in lending. For the period ending March 31, 2011, the impact of the change was $107 million. In prior quarters, it was reported in treasury services.
(d)	Represents the total revenue related to investment banking products sold to CB clients.
(e)	Corporate Client Banking was known as Mid-Corporate Banking prior to January 1, 2011.

Quarterly results

Net income was $546 million, an increase of $156 million, or 40%, from the prior year. The increase was driven by a reduction in the provision for credit losses and higher net revenue.

Net revenue was $1.5 billion, up by $100 million, or 7%, from the prior year. Net interest income was $1.0 billion, up by $98 million, or 11%, driven by growth in liability balances, wider loan spreads, and growth in loan balances, partially offset by spread compression on liability products. Noninterest revenue was $502 million, flat compared with the prior year.

Revenue from Middle Market Banking was $755 million, an increase of $9 million, or 1%, from the prior year. Revenue from Commercial Term Lending was $286 million, an increase of $57 million, or 25%. Revenue from Corporate Client Banking (formerly Mid-Corporate Banking) was $290 million, an increase of $27 million, or 10%. Revenue from Real Estate Banking was $88 million, a decrease of $12 million, or 12%.

30

The provision for credit losses was $47 million, compared with $214 million in the prior year. Net charge-offs were $31 million (0.13% net charge-off rate) and were largely related to commercial real estate; this compared with net charge-offs of $229 million (0.96% net charge-off rate) in the prior year. The allowance for loan losses to end-of-period loans retained was 2.59%, down from 3.15% in the prior year. Nonaccrual loans were $2.0 billion, down by $1.0 billion, or 35%, from the prior year, reflecting decreases in commercial real estate.

Noninterest expense was $563 million, an increase of $24 million, or 4%, from the prior year, primarily reflecting higher headcount-related expense.

Selected metrics	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except headcount and ratios)	2011			2010			Change
Selected balance sheet data (period-end):
Loans:
Loans retained	$	99,334		$	95,435			4	%
Loans held-for-sale and loans at fair value		835			294			184
Total loans		100,169			95,729			5
Equity		8,000			8,000			—
Selected balance sheet data (average):
Total assets	$	140,400		$	133,013			6
Loans:
Loans retained		98,829			96,317			3
Loans held-for-sale and loans at fair value		756			297			155
Total loans		99,585			96,614			3
Liability balances		156,200			133,142			17
Equity		8,000			8,000			—
Average loans by client segment:
Middle Market Banking	$	38,207		$	33,919			13
Commercial Term Lending		37,810			36,057			5
Corporate Client Banking(a)		12,374			12,258			1
Real Estate Banking		7,607			10,438			(27	)
Other		3,587			3,942			(9	)
Total Commercial Banking loans	$	99,585		$	96,614			3
Headcount		4,941			4,701			5
Credit data and quality statistics:
Net charge-offs	$	31		$	229			(86	)
Nonperforming assets
Nonaccrual loans:
Nonaccrual loans retained		1,925			2,947			(35	)
Nonaccrual loans held-for-sale and loans at fair value		30			49			(39	)
Total nonaccrual loans		1,955			2,996			(35	)
Assets acquired in loan satisfactions		179			190			(6	)
Total nonperforming assets		2,134			3,186			(33	)
Allowance for credit losses:
Allowance for loan losses(b)		2,577			3,007			(14	)
Allowance for lending-related commitments		206			359			(43	)
Total allowance for credit losses		2,783			3,366			(17	)
Net charge-off rate		0.13	%		0.96	%
Allowance for loan losses to period-end loansretained		2.59			3.15
Allowance for loan losses to nonaccrual loans retained		134			102
Nonaccrual loans to total period-end loans		1.95			3.13

(a)	Corporate Client Banking was known as Mid-Corporate Banking prior to January 1, 2011.
(b)	Allowance for loan losses of $360 million and $612 million were held against nonaccrual loans retained for the periods ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

31

TREASURY & SECURITIES SERVICES

For a discussion of the business profile of TSS, see pages 84—85 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report and Introduction on page 5 of this Form 10-Q.

Selected income statement data	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except headcount and ratios)	2011			2010			Change
Revenue
Lending— and deposit—related fees	$	303		$	311			(3	)%
Asset management, administration and commissions		695			659			5
All other income		139			176			(21	)
Noninterest revenue		1,137			1,146			(1	)
Net interest income		703			610			15
Total net revenue		1,840			1,756			5
Provision for credit losses		4			(39	)	NM
Credit allocation income/(expense)(a)		27			(30	)	NM
Noninterest expense
Compensation expense		715			657			9
Noncompensation expense		647			650			—
Amortization of intangibles		15			18			(17	)
Total noninterest expense		1,377			1,325			4
Income before income tax expense		486			440			10
Income tax expense		170			161			6
Net income	$	316		$	279			13
Revenue by business
Treasury Services	$	891		$	882			1
Worldwide Securities Services		949			874			9
Total net revenue	$	1,840		$	1,756			5
Revenue by geographic region(b)
Asia/Pacific	$	276		$	219			26
Latin America/Caribbean		76			45			69
Europe/Middle East/Africa		630			569			11
North America		858			923			(7	)
Total net revenue	$	1,840		$	1,756			5
Trade finance loans by geographic region (period-end)(b)
Asia/Pacific	$	14,607		$	7,679			90
Latin America/Caribbean		4,014			2,881			39
Europe/Middle East/Africa		5,794			2,163			168
North America		1,084			996			9
Total trade finance loans	$	25,499		$	13,719			86
Financial ratios
Return on common equity		18	%		17	%
Overhead ratio		75			75
Pretax margin ratio		26			25
Selected balance sheet data (period-end)
Loans(c)	$	31,020		$	24,066			29
Equity		7,000			6,500			8
Selected balance sheet data (average)
Total assets	$	47,873		$	38,273			25
Loans(c)		29,290			19,578			50
Liability balances		265,720			247,905			7
Equity		7,000			6,500			8
Headcount		28,040			27,223			3

(a)	IB manages credit exposures related to the GCB on behalf of IB and TSS. Effective January 1, 2011, IB and TSS will share the economics related to the Firm’s GCB clients. Included within this allocation are net revenues, provision for credit losses, as well as expenses. The prior-year period reflected a reimbursement to IB for a portion of the total costs of managing the credit portfolio. IB recognizes this credit allocation as a component of all other income.
(b)	Revenue and trade finance loans are based on TSS management’s view of the domicile of clients.
(c)	Loan balances include trade finance loans, wholesale overdrafts and commercial card. Effective January 1, 2011, the commercial card loan portfolio (of approximately $1.2 billion) that was previously in TSS was transferred to CS. There is no material impact on the financial data; the prior-year period was not revised.

32

Quarterly results

Net income was $316 million, an increase of $37 million, or 13%, from the prior year.

Net revenue was $1.8 billion, an increase of $84 million, or 5%, from the prior year. Worldwide Securities Services net revenue was $949 million, an increase of $75 million, or 9%. The increase was driven by net inflows of assets under custody, higher market levels and higher net interest income. Treasury Services net revenue was $891 million, an increase of $9 million, or 1%. The increase was driven by higher net interest income and higher international trade loan volumes, offset by the transfer of the Commercial Card business to CS in the first quarter of 2011.

TSS generated firmwide net revenue of $2.4 billion, including $1.5 billion by Treasury Services; of that amount, $891 million was recorded in Treasury Services, $542 million in Commercial Banking and $63 million in other lines of business. The remaining $949 million of firmwide net revenue was recorded in Worldwide Securities Services.

Noninterest expense was $1.4 billion, an increase of $52 million, or 4%, from the prior year. The increase was mainly driven by continued investment in new product platforms, primarily related to international expansion, partially offset by the transfer of the Commercial Card business to Card Services.

Results for the current quarter include a $27 million pretax benefit related to the allocation between IB and TSS associated with credit extended to GCB clients. IB manages credit exposures related to the GCB on behalf of IB and TSS. Effective January 1, 2011, IB and TSS will share the economics related to the Firm’s GCB clients.

Selected metrics	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except ratios and where otherwise noted)	2011			2010			Change
TSS firmwide disclosures
Treasury Services revenue – reported	$	891		$	882			1	%
Treasury Services revenue reported in CB(a)		542			638			(15	)
Treasury Services revenue reported in other lines of business		63			56			13
Treasury Services firmwide revenue(b)		1,496			1,576			(5	)
Worldwide Securities Services revenue		949			874			9
Treasury & Securities Services firmwide revenue(b)	$	2,445		$	2,450			—
Treasury Services firmwide liability balances (average)(c)	$	339,240		$	305,105			11
Treasury & Securities Services firmwide liability balances (average)(c)		421,920			381,047			11
TSS firmwide financial ratios
Treasury Services firmwide overhead ratio(a)(d)		56	%		55	%
Treasury & Securities Services firmwide overhead ratio(a)(d)		67			65
Firmwide business metrics
Assets under custody (in billions)	$	16,619		$	15,283			9
Number of:
U.S.$ ACH transactions originated		992			949			5
Total U.S.$ clearing volume (in thousands)		30,971			28,669			8
International electronic funds transfer volume (in thousands)(e)		60,942			55,754			9
Wholesale check volume		532			478			11
Wholesale cards issued (in thousands)(f)		23,170			27,352			(15	)
Credit data and quality statistics
Net charge-offs	$	—		$	—			—
Nonaccrual loans		11			14			(21	)
Allowance for credit losses:
Allowance for loan losses		69			57			21
Allowance for lending-related commitments		48			76			(37	)
Total allowance for credit losses		117			133			(12	)
Net charge-off rate		—	%		—	%
Allowance for loan losses to period-end loans		0.22			0.24
Allowance for loan losses to nonaccrual loans	NM				407
Nonaccrual loans to period-end loans		0.04			0.06

(a)	Effective January 1, 2011, certain CB revenues were excluded in the TS firmwide metrics; they are instead directly captured within CB’s lending revenue by product. For the three months ended March 31, 2011, the impact of this change was $107 million. For the three months ended March 31, 2010, these revenues were included in CB’s treasury services revenue by product.
(b)	TSS firmwide revenue includes foreign exchange (“FX”) revenue recorded in TSS and FX revenue associated with TSS customers who are FX customers of IB. However, some of the FX revenue associated with TSS customers who are FX customers of IB is not included in TS and TSS

33

	firmwide revenue. The total FX revenue generated was $160 million and $137 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
(c)	Firmwide liability balances include liability balances recorded in CB.
(d)	Overhead ratios have been calculated based on firmwide revenue and TSS and TS expense, respectively, including those allocated to certain other lines of business. FX revenue and expense recorded in IB for TSS-related FX activity are not included in this ratio.
(e)	International electronic funds transfer includes non-U.S. dollar Automated Clearing House (“ACH”) and clearing volume.
(f)	Wholesale cards issued and outstanding include U.S. domestic commercial, stored value, prepaid and government electronic benefit card products. Effective January 1, 2011, the commercial card business was transferred from TSS to CS.

ASSET MANAGEMENT

For a discussion of the business profile of AM, see pages 86–88 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report and Introduction on page 5 of this Form 10-Q.

Selected income statement data	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except ratios)	2011			2010			Change
Revenue
Asset management, administration and commissions	$	1,707		$	1,508			13	%
All other income		313			266			18
Noninterest revenue		2,020			1,774			14
Net interest income		386			357			8
Total net revenue		2,406			2,131			13
Provision for credit losses		5			35			(86	)
Noninterest expense
Compensation expense		1,039			910			14
Noncompensation expense		599			514			17
Amortization of intangibles		22			18			22
Total noninterest expense		1,660			1,442			15
Income before income tax expense		741			654			13
Income tax expense		275			262			5
Net income	$	466		$	392			19
Revenue by client segment
Private Banking(a)	$	1,317		$	1,150			15
Institutional		549			544			1
Retail		540			437			24
Total net revenue	$	2,406		$	2,131			13
Financial ratios
Return on common equity		29	%		24	%
Overhead ratio		69			68
Pretax margin ratio		31			31

(a) Private Banking is a combination of the previously disclosed client segments: Private Bank, Private Wealth Management and JPMorgan Securities.

Quarterly results

Net income was $466 million, an increase of $74 million, or 19%, from the prior year. These results reflected higher net revenue and a lower provision for credit losses, largely offset by higher noninterest expense.

Net revenue was $2.4 billion, an increase of $275 million, or 13%, from the prior year. Noninterest revenue was $2.0 billion, up by $246 million, or 14%, due to the effect of higher market levels, net inflows to products with higher margins and higher loan originations, partially offset by lower performance fees. Net interest income was $386 million, up by $29 million, or 8%, due to higher deposit and loan balances, partially offset by narrower deposit spreads.

Revenue from Private Banking was $1.3 billion, up 15% from the prior year. Revenue from Institutional was $549 million, up 1%. Revenue from Retail was $540 million, up 24%.

The provision for credit losses was $5 million, compared with $35 million in the prior year.

Noninterest expense was $1.7 billion, an increase of $218 million, or 15%, from the prior year, largely resulting from an increase in headcount.

34

Business metrics	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except headcount, ranking data, and where otherwise noted)	2011			2010			Change
Number of:
Client advisors(a)		2,288			1,998			15	%
Retirement planning services participants (in thousands)		1,604			1,651			(3	)
JPMorgan Securities brokers		431			391			10
% of customer assets in 4 & 5 Star Funds(b)		46	%		43	%		7
% of AUM in 1st and 2nd quartiles(c)
1 year		57	%		55	%		4
3 years		70	%		67	%		4
5 years		77	%		77	%		—
Selected balance sheet data (period-end)
Loans	$	46,454		$	37,088			25
Equity		6,500			6,500			—
Selected balance sheet data (average)
Total assets	$	68,918		$	62,525			10
Loans		44,948			36,602			23
Deposits		95,250			80,662			18
Equity		6,500			6,500			—
Headcount		17,203			15,321			12
Credit data and quality statistics
Net charge-offs	$	11		$	28			(61	)
Nonaccrual loans		254			475			(47	)
Allowance for credit losses:
Allowance for loan losses		257			261			(2	)
Allowance for lending-related commitments		4			13			(69	)
Total allowance for credit losses		261			274			(5	)
Net charge-off rate		0.10	%		0.31	%
Allowance for loan losses to period-end loans		0.55			0.70
Allowance for loan losses to nonaccrual loans		101			55
Nonaccrual loans to period-end loans		0.55			1.28

(a)	Effective January 1, 2011, the methodology used to determine client advisors was revised. The prior period has been revised.
(b)	Derived from Morningstar for the U.S., the U.K., Luxembourg, France, Hong Kong and Taiwan; and Nomura for Japan.
(c)	Quartile ranking sourced from: Lipper for the U.S. and Taiwan; Morningstar for the U.K., Luxembourg, France and Hong Kong; and Nomura for Japan.

35

Assets under supervision

Assets under supervision were $1.9 trillion, an increase of $201 billion, or 12%, from the prior year. Assets under management were $1.3 trillion, an increase of $111 billion, or 9%. Both increases were due to the effect of higher market levels and record net inflows to long-term products, partially offset by net outflows in liquidity products. Custody, brokerage, administration and deposit balances were $578 billion, up by $90 billion, or 18%, due to the effect of higher market levels and custody and brokerage inflows.

ASSETS UNDER SUPERVISION(a) (in billions)
As of or for the quarter ended March 31,	2011		2010
Assets by asset class
Liquidity	$	490	$	521
Fixed income		305		246
Equities and multi-asset		421		355
Alternatives		114		97
Total assets under management		1,330		1,219
Custody/brokerage/administration/deposits		578		488
Total assets under supervision	$	1,908	$	1,707
Assets by client segment
Private Banking(b)	$	293	$	268
Institutional		696		669
Retail		341		282
Total assets under management	$	1,330	$	1,219
Private Banking(b)	$	773	$	666
Institutional		697		670
Retail		438		371
Total assets under supervision	$	1,908	$	1,707
Mutual fund assets by asset class
Liquidity	$	436	$	470
Fixed income		99		76
Equities and multi-asset		173		150
Alternatives		8		9
Total mutual fund assets	$	716	$	705

(a)	Excludes assets under management of American Century Companies, Inc., in which the Firm had a 40% and 42% ownership at March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
(b)	Private Banking is a combination of the previously disclosed client segments: Private Bank, Private Wealth Management and JPMorgan Securities.

	Three months ended March 31,
(in billions)	2011			2010
Assets under management rollforward
Beginning balance, January 1	$	1,298		$	1,249
Net asset flows:
Liquidity		(9	)		(62	)
Fixed income		16			16
Equities, multi-asset and alternatives		11			6
Market/performance/other impacts		14			10
Ending balance, March 31	$	1,330		$	1,219
Assets under supervision rollforward
Beginning balance, January 1	$	1,840		$	1,701
Net asset flows		31			(10	)
Market/performance/other impacts		37			16
Ending balance, March 31	$	1,908		$	1,707

36

	Three months ended March 31,
International metrics	2011		2010		Change
Total net revenue: (in millions)(a)
Asia/Pacific	$	246	$	222		11	%
Latin America/Caribbean		165		124		33
Europe/Middle East/Africa		439		385		14
North America		1,556		1,400		11
Total net revenue	$	2,406	$	2,131		13
Assets under management: (in billions)
Asia/Pacific	$	115	$	102		13
Latin America/Caribbean		35		26		35
Europe/Middle East/Africa		300		265		13
North America		880		826		7
Total assets under management	$	1,330	$	1,219		9
Assets under supervision: (in billions)
Asia/Pacific	$	155	$	131		18
Latin America/Caribbean		88		66		33
Europe/Middle East/Africa		353		310		14
North America		1,312		1,200		9
Total assets under supervision	$	1,908	$	1,707		12

(a) Regional revenue is based on the domicile of clients.

37

CORPORATE / PRIVATE EQUITY

For a discussion of the business profile of Corporate/Private Equity, see pages 89—90 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Selected income statement data	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except headcount)	2011			2010			Change
Revenue
Principal transactions	$	1,298		$	547			137	%
Securities gains		102			610			(83	)
All other income		78			124			(37	)
Noninterest revenue		1,478			1,281			15
Net interest income(a)		34			1,076			(97	)
Total net revenue(b)		1,512			2,357			(36	)
Provision for credit losses		(10	)		17		NM
Noninterest expense
Compensation expense		657			475			38
Noncompensation expense(c)		1,143			3,041			(62	)
Subtotal		1,800			3,516			(49	)
Net expense allocated to other businesses		(1,238	)		(1,180	)		(5	)
Total noninterest expense		562			2,336			(76	)
Income before income tax expense/(benefit)		960			4		NM
Income tax expense/(benefit)(d)		238			(224	)	NM
Net income	$	722		$	228			217
Total net revenue
Private Equity	$	699		$	115		NM
Corporate		813			2,242			(64	)
Total net revenue	$	1,512		$	2,357			(36	)
Net income
Private Equity	$	383		$	55		NM
Corporate		339			173			96
Total net income	$	722		$	228			217
Headcount		20,927			19,307			8

(a)	Net interest income was $34 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011, a decrease of $1.0 billion from the prior year, primarily driven by lower yields and lower average securities balances due to portfolio repositioning.
(b)	Total net revenue included tax-equivalent adjustments, predominantly due to tax-exempt income from municipal bond investments of $64 million and $48 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
(c)	Includes litigation expense of $363 million and $2.3 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
(d)	Income tax in the first quarter of 2010 includes significantly higher tax benefits recognized upon the resolution of tax audits.

Quarterly results

Net income was $722 million, compared with net income of $228 million in the prior year.

Private Equity net income was $383 million, compared with $55 million in the prior year. Net revenue was $699 million, an increase of $584 million, driven by gains on sales and net increases in investment valuations. Noninterest expense was $113 million, an increase of $83 million from the prior year.

Corporate reported net income of $339 million, compared with net income of $173 million in the prior year. Net revenue was $813 million, including $102 million of securities gains. Noninterest expense was $449 million, a decrease of $1.9 billion from the prior year; the prior year included significant additions to litigation reserves.

Treasury and Chief Investment Office (“CIO”)

Selected income statement and	Three months ended March 31,
balance sheet data
(in millions)	2011		2010		Change
Securities gains(a)	$	102	$	610		(83	)%
Investment securities portfolio (average)		313,319		330,584		(5	)
Investment securities portfolio (ending)		328,013		337,442		(3	)
Mortgage loans (average)		11,418		8,162		40
Mortgage loans (ending)		12,171		8,368		45

(a) Reflects repositioning of the Corporate investment securities portfolio.

38

For further information on the investment securities portfolio, see Note 3 and Note 11 on pages 94—105 and 116—120, respectively, of this Form 10-Q. For further information on CIO VaR and the Firm’s earnings-at-risk, see the Market Risk Management section on pages 81—84 of this Form 10-Q.

Selected income statement and balance sheet data	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010			Change
Private equity gains/(losses)
Realized gains	$	171	$	113			51	%
Unrealized gains/(losses)(a)		370		(75	)	NM
Total direct investments		541		38		NM
Third-party fund investments		186		98			90
Total private equity gains/(losses)(b)	$	727	$	136			435

Private equity portfolio information(c)
Direct investments
(in millions)	March 31, 2011		December 31, 2010		Change
Publicly held securities
Carrying value	$	731	$	875		(16	)%
Cost		649		732		(11	)
Quoted public value		785		935		(16	)
Privately held direct securities
Carrying value		7,212		5,882		23
Cost		7,731		6,887		12
Third-party fund investments(d)
Carrying value		2,179		1,980		10
Cost		2,461		2,404		2
Total private equity portfolio
Carrying value	$	10,122	$	8,737		16
Cost	$	10,841	$	10,023		8

(a)	Unrealized gains/(losses) contain reversals of unrealized gains and losses that were recognized in prior periods and have now been realized.
(b)	Included in principal transactions revenue in the Consolidated Statements of Income.
(c)	For more information on the Firm’s policies regarding the valuation of the private equity portfolio, see Note 3 on pages 170—187 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.
(d)	Unfunded commitments to third-party private equity funds were $943 million and $1.0 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

The carrying value of the private equity portfolio at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, was $10.1 billion and $8.7 billion, respectively. The increase in the portfolio during the three months ended March 31, 2011, is primarily due to net increases in investment valuations in the portfolio and incremental new investment. The portfolio represented 7.7% and 6.9% of the Firm’s stockholders’ equity less goodwill at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

39

INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

During the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, the Firm reported approximately $6.8 billion of revenue derived from clients, customers and counterparties domiciled outside of North America. Of that amount, approximately 66% and 71%, respectively, was derived from Europe/Middle East/Africa (“EMEA”), approximately 26% and 22%, respectively, from Asia/Pacific, and approximately 8% and 7%, respectively, from Latin America/Caribbean.

The Firm is committed to further expanding its wholesale business activities outside the United States, and it intends to add additional client-serving bankers, as well as more product and sales support personnel, to address the needs of the Firm’s clients located in these regions. With a comprehensive and coordinated international business strategy and growth plan, efforts and investments for growth outside the United States will be accelerated and prioritized.

Set forth below are certain key metrics related to the Firm’s wholesale international operations including, for each of EMEA, Asia/Pacific and Latin America/Caribbean, the number of countries in each such region in which it operates, front office headcount, number of clients, revenue and selected balance sheet data. For additional information regarding international operations, see International Operations on page 91, and Note 33 on page 290 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

As of or for the three months ended March 31	EMEA				Asia/Pacific				Latin America/Caribbean
(in millions, except where otherwise noted)	2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
• Revenue	$	4,490	$	4,760	$	1,737	$	1,508	$	569	$	480
• Countries with operations		34		33		16		15		8		8
• Total headcount(a)		16,268		15,552		19,511		16,825		1,253		889
• Front office headcount		5,898		5,346		4,126		3,758		503		365
• Significant clients(b)		944		895		459		398		175		157
• Deposits (average)(c)	$	146,559	$	140,215	$	47,392	$	54,002	$	2,100	$	1,331
• Loans (period end)(d)		30,360		26,640		23,144		16,385		17,745		13,294
• Assets under management (in billions)		300		265		115		102		35		26
• Assets under supervision (in billions)		353		310		155		131		88		66

Note:	Wholesale international operations is comprised of IB, AM, TSS, CB and CIO/Treasury.
(a)	Total headcount includes all employees, including those in service centers, located in the region.
(b)	Significant clients are defined as companies with over $1 million in revenue in the region (excludes private banking clients).
(c)	Deposits are based on booking location.
(d)	Loans outstanding are based predominantly on the domicile of the borrower, and exclude loans held-for-sale and loans carried at fair value.

40

BALANCE SHEET ANALYSIS

Selected Consolidated Balance Sheets data (in millions)	March 31, 2011			December 31, 2010
Assets
Cash and due from banks	$	23,469		$	27,567
Deposits with banks		80,842			21,673
Federal funds sold and securities purchased under resale agreements		217,356			222,554
Securities borrowed		119,000			123,587
Trading assets:
Debt and equity instruments		422,404			409,411
Derivative receivables		78,744			80,481
Securities		334,800			316,336
Loans		685,996			692,927
Allowance for loan losses		(29,750	)		(32,266	)
Loans, net of allowance for loan losses		656,246			660,661
Accrued interest and accounts receivable		79,236			70,147
Premises and equipment		13,422			13,355
Goodwill		48,856			48,854
Mortgage servicing rights		13,093			13,649
Other intangible assets		3,857			4,039
Other assets		106,836			105,291
Total assets	$	2,198,161		$	2,117,605
Liabilities
Deposits	$	995,829		$	930,369
Federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under repurchase agreements		285,444			276,644
Commercial paper		46,022			35,363
Other borrowed funds(a)		36,704			34,325
Trading liabilities:
Debt and equity instruments		80,031			76,947
Derivative payables		61,362			69,219
Accounts payable and other liabilities		171,638			170,330
Beneficial interests issued by consolidated VIEs		70,917			77,649
Long-term debt(a)		269,616			270,653
Total liabilities		2,017,563			1,941,499
Stockholders’ equity		180,598			176,106
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	2,198,161		$	2,117,605

(a) Effective January 1, 2011, $23.0 billion of long-term advances from FHLBs were reclassified from other borrowed funds to long-term debt. The prior-year period has been revised to conform with the current presentation. For additional information, see Note 3 and Note 18 on pages 94–105 and 153, respectively, of this Form 10-Q.

Consolidated Balance Sheets overview

JPMorgan Chase’s assets and liabilities increased from December 31, 2010, largely due to a significant increase in deposit inflows toward the end of the first quarter of 2011. The inflows contributed to higher deposits with banks – in particular, balances due from Federal Reserve Banks. A higher level of securities and commercial paper also contributed to the increase in assets and liabilities. The increase in stockholders’ equity predominantly reflected net income for the three months ended March 31, 2011.

The following is a discussion of the significant changes in the specific line captions of the Consolidated Balance Sheets from December 31, 2010. For a description of the specific line captions discussed below, see pages 92–94 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Deposits with banks; federal funds sold and securities purchased under resale agreements; and securities borrowed

Deposits with banks increased significantly and reflected a higher level of balances due from Federal Reserve Banks; the increase was largely the result of inflows of short-term wholesale deposits from TSS clients toward the end of March 2011 (see deposits discussion for further details). Securities purchased under resale agreements and securities borrowed decreased, largely in IB, reflecting lower client financing needs. For additional information on the Firm’s Liquidity Risk Management, see pages 53–58 of this Form 10-Q.

41

Trading assets and liabilities – debt and equity instruments

Trading assets – debt and equity instruments increased, largely driven by growth in customer demand; market activity, including a significant level of new issuances; and rising global indices. Trading liabilities – debt and equity instruments increased, largely due to growth in customer demand, market activity and economic hedging activity. For additional information, refer to Note 3 on pages 94–105 of this Form 10-Q.

Trading assets and liabilities – derivative receivables and payables

Derivative receivables and payables decreased, largely due to a reduction in foreign exchange derivatives, which declined primarily due to the Japanese yen depreciation relative to the U.S. dollar. Interest rate contracts also decreased as a result of higher interest rate yields during the quarter. These items were partially offset by increases in equity derivatives, as a result of growth in activity in the EMEA and Latin American markets, and commodity derivatives, primarily as a result of higher oil prices. For additional information, refer to Derivative contracts on pages 66–67, and Note 3 and Note 5 on pages 94–105 and 107–113, respectively, of this Form 10-Q.

Securities

Securities increased, largely due to repositioning of the portfolio in Corporate, in response to changes in the interest rate environment. The repositioning increased non-U.S. government debt and mortgage-backed securities, increased corporate debt, and reduced U.S. government agency securities. For information related to securities, refer to the Corporate/Private Equity segment on pages 38–39, and Note 3 and Note 11 on pages 94–105 and 116–120, respectively, of this Form 10-Q.

Loans and allowance for loan losses

Loans decreased, reflecting seasonality and higher repayment rates of credit card loans; runoff of the Washington Mutual credit card portfolio; and lower consumer loans, excluding credit card, predominantly as a result of paydowns and charge-offs in RFS. The decrease was offset partially by an increase in wholesale loans, reflecting growth in client activity. The allowance for loan losses decreased, primarily as a result of lower estimated losses in the credit card loan portfolio, as well as wholesale loan sales. For a more detailed discussion of the loan portfolio and the allowance for loan losses, refer to Credit Risk Management on pages 59–81, and Notes 3, 4, 13 and 14 on pages 94–105, 105–106, 122–138 and 139–140, respectively, of this Form 10-Q.

Accrued interest and accounts receivable

Accrued interest and accounts receivable increased, reflecting higher customer receivables in IB’s Prime Services business due to growth in client activity.

Mortgage servicing rights

MSRs decreased, due to changes to inputs and assumptions in the MSR valuation model; these changes resulted in a $1.1 billion decrease in the fair value of the MSR asset related to the estimated impact of higher servicing costs to enhance servicing processes, particularly loan modification and foreclosure procedures, and costs to comply with Consent Orders entered into with banking regulators. This decrease was partially offset by increases related to changes in market interest rates during the quarter. For additional information on MSRs, see Note 3 and Note 16 on pages 94–105 and 149–152, respectively, of this Form 10-Q.

Other intangible assets

The decrease in other intangible assets was predominantly due to amortization. For additional information on other intangible assets, see Note 16 on pages 149–152 of this Form 10-Q.

Deposits

Deposits increased, largely as a result of inflows toward the end of March 2011 of short-term wholesale deposits from TSS clients; also contributing were growth in the level of retail deposits, from the combined effect of seasonal factors, such as tax refunds and bonus payments, and general growth in business volumes. For more information on deposits, refer to the RFS and AM segment discussions on pages 20–27 and 34–37, respectively; the Liquidity Risk Management discussion on pages 53–58; and Note 3 and Note 17 on pages 94–105 and 153, respectively, of this Form 10-Q. For more information on wholesale liability balances, which includes deposits, refer to the CB and TSS segment discussions on pages 30–31 and 32–34, respectively, of this Form 10-Q.

Federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under repurchase agreements

Securities sold under repurchase agreements increased, due to higher securities financing balances, in connection with repositioning of the securities portfolio in Corporate. For additional information on the Firm’s Liquidity Risk Management, see pages 53–58 of this Form 10-Q.

42

Commercial paper and other borrowed funds

Commercial paper and other borrowed funds increased, due to growth in the volume of liability balances in sweep accounts, in connection with TSS’s cash management product, and modest incremental short-term borrowing by the Firm under cost-effective terms. For additional information on the Firm’s Liquidity Risk Management and other borrowed funds, see pages 53–58, and Note 18 on page 153 of this Form 10-Q.

Beneficial interests issued by consolidated VIEs

Beneficial interests decreased, predominantly due to maturities of Firm-sponsored credit card securitization transactions. For additional information on Firm-sponsored VIEs and loan securitization trusts, see Off–Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Cash Obligations below, and Note 15 on pages 141–149 of this Form 10-Q.

Long-term debt

Long-term debt decreased, due to net repayments of long-term borrowings. For additional information on the Firm’s long-term debt activities, see the Liquidity Risk Management discussion on pages 53–58 of this Form 10-Q.

Stockholders’ equity

Total stockholders’ equity increased, predominantly due to net income and net issuances and commitments to issue under the Firm’s employee stock-based compensation plans. The increase was offset by the declaration of cash dividends on common and preferred stock; a net decrease in accumulated other comprehensive income, due primarily to decreased market value on pass-through agency MBS and agency collateralized mortgage obligations, as well as on foreign government debt, partially offset by the narrowing of spreads on collateralized loan obligations and foreign residential MBS; and stock repurchases.

43

OFF–BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS

JPMorgan Chase is involved with several types of off–balance sheet arrangements, including through special-purpose entities (“SPEs”), which are a type of VIE, and through lending-related financial instruments (e.g., commitments and guarantees). For further discussion, see Off–Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Cash Obligations on pages 95–101 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Special-purpose entities

SPEs are the most common type of VIE, used in securitization transactions in order to isolate certain assets and distribute related cash flows to investors. SPEs continue to be an important part of the financial markets, including the mortgage- and ABS and commercial paper markets, as they provide market liquidity by facilitating investors’ access to specific portfolios of assets and risks. The Firm holds capital, as deemed appropriate, against all SPE-related transactions and related exposures, such as derivative transactions and lending-related commitments and guarantees. For further information on the Firm’s involvement with SPEs, see Note 15 on pages 141–149 of this Form 10-Q; and Note 1 on pages 164–165 and Note 15 on pages 244–259 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

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

For certain liquidity commitments to SPEs, the Firm could be required to provide funding if the short-term credit rating of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., were downgraded below specific levels, primarily “P-1,” “A-1” and “F1” for Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch, respectively. The aggregate amounts of these liquidity commitments, to both consolidated and nonconsolidated SPEs, were $33.5 billion and $34.2 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively. Alternatively, if JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., were downgraded, the Firm could be replaced by another liquidity provider in lieu of providing funding under the liquidity commitment or, in certain circumstances, the Firm could facilitate the sale or refinancing of the assets in the SPE in order to provide liquidity.

Special-purpose entities revenue

The following table summarizes certain revenue information related to consolidated and nonconsolidated VIEs with which the Firm has significant involvement. The revenue reported in the table below primarily represents contractual servicing and credit fee income (i.e., income from acting as administrator, structurer or liquidity provider). It does not include gains and losses from changes in the fair value of trading positions (such as derivative transactions) entered into with VIEs. Those gains and losses are recorded in principal transactions revenue.

Revenue from VIEs and securitization entities(a)	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010
Multi-seller conduits	$	48	$	67
Investor intermediation		15		13
Other securitization entities(b)		412		544
Total	$	475	$	624

(a)	Includes revenue associated with both consolidated VIEs and significant nonconsolidated VIEs.
(b)	Excludes servicing revenue from loans sold to and securitized by third parties.

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

JPMorgan Chase provides lending-related financial instruments (e.g., commitments and guarantees) to meet the financing needs of its customers. The contractual amount of these financial instruments represents the maximum possible credit risk to the Firm should the counterparty draw upon the commitment or the Firm be required to fulfill its obligation under the guarantee, and should the counterparty subsequently fail to perform according to the terms of the contract. Most of these commitments and guarantees expire without being drawn or a default occurring. As a result, the total contractual amount of these instruments is not, in the Firm’s view, representative of its actual future credit exposure or funding requirements. For further discussion of lending-related commitments and guarantees and the Firm’s accounting for them, see Lending-related commitments on page 68 and Note 21 on pages 156–159 of this Form 10-Q; and Lending-related commitments on page 128 and Note 30 on pages 275–280 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

44

The following table presents, as of March 31, 2011, the amounts by contractual maturity of off–balance sheet lending-related financial instruments, guarantees and other commitments. The amounts in the table for credit card and home equity lending-related commitments represent the total available credit to borrowers for these products. The Firm has not experienced, and does not anticipate, that all available lines of credit for these products would be used by borrowers at the same time. The Firm can reduce or cancel credit card lines of credit by providing the borrower prior notice or, in some cases, without notice as permitted by law. The Firm may reduce or close home equity lines of credit when there are significant decreases in the value of the underlying property or when there has been a demonstrable decline in the creditworthiness of the borrower. The accompanying table excludes certain guarantees that do not have a contractual maturity date (e.g., loan sale and securitization-related indemnification obligations). For further information, see discussion of Loan sale and securitization-related indemnification obligations in Note 21 on pages 156–159 of this Form 10-Q, and Loan sale and securitization-related indemnification obligations in Note 30 on pages 275–280 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

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

	March 31, 2011										Dec. 31, 2010
					Due after
			Due after		3 years
By remaining maturity	Due in 1 year		1 year through		through		Due after
(in millions)	or less		3 years		5 years		5 years		Total		Total
Lending-related
Consumer, excluding credit card:
Home equity — senior lien	$	697	$	3,560	$	5,715	$	7,434	$	17,406	$	17,662
Home equity — junior lien		1,407		7,739		10,294		10,706		30,146		30,948
Prime mortgage		745		—		—		—		745		1,266
Subprime mortgage		—		—		—		—		—		—
Auto		5,743		196		1		7		5,947		5,246
Business banking		9,093		367		70		278		9,808		9,702
Student and other		6		5		—		497		508		579
Total consumer, excluding credit card		17,691		11,867		16,080		18,922		64,560		65,403
Credit card		565,813		—		—		—		565,813		547,227
Total consumer		583,504		11,867		16,080		18,922		630,373		612,630
Wholesale:
Other unfunded commitments to extend credit(a)(b)		63,549		96,073		41,657		5,400		206,679		199,859
Standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees(a)(b)(c)(d)		26,233		44,633		20,091		4,404		95,361		94,837
Unused advised lines of credit		39,796		7,412		166		204		47,578		44,720
Other letters of credit(a)(d)		3,575		1,972		395		1		5,943		6,663
Total wholesale		133,153		150,090		62,309		10,009		355,561		346,079
Total lending-related	$	716,657	$	161,957	$	78,389	$	28,931	$	985,934	$	958,709
Other guarantees and commitments
Securities lending guarantees(e)	$	200,627	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	200,627	$	181,717
Derivatives qualifying as guarantees(f)		3,416		606		47,348		35,990		87,360		87,768
Unsettled reverse repurchase and securities borrowing agreements		47,021		—		—		—		47,021		39,927
Other guarantees and commitments(g)		1,475		235		311		4,352		6,373		6,492

(a)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, represented the contractual amount net of risk participations totaling $570 million and $542 million, respectively, for other unfunded commitments to extend credit; $22.8 billion and $22.4 billion, respectively, for standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees; and $1.3 billion and $1.1 billion, respectively, for other letters of credit. In regulatory filings with the Federal Reserve these commitments are shown gross of risk participations.
(b)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included credit enhancements and bond and commercial paper liquidity commitments to U.S. states and municipalities, hospitals and other not-for-profit entities of $43.9 billion and $43.4 billion, respectively.
(c)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, includes unissued standby letters of credit commitments of $41.5 billion and $41.6 billion, respectively.
(d)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, JPMorgan Chase held collateral relating to $38.0 billion and $37.8 billion, respectively, of standby letters of credit; and $2.0 billion and $2.1 billion, respectively, of collateral related to other letters of credit.
(e)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, collateral held by the Firm in support of securities lending indemnification agreements totaled $203.4 billion and $185.0 billion, respectively. Securities lending collateral comprises primarily cash, and securities issued by governments that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) and U.S. government agencies.
(f)	Represents the notional amounts of derivative contracts qualifying as guarantees. For further discussion of guarantees, see Note 5 on pages 107–113 and Note 21 on pages 156–159 of this Form 10-Q.
(g)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included unfunded commitments of $943 million and $1.0 billion, respectively, to third-party private equity funds; and $1.3 billion and $1.4 billion, respectively, to other equity investments. These commitments included $885 million and $1.0 billion, respectively, related to investments that are generally fair valued at net asset value as discussed in Note 3 on pages 94–105 of this Form 10-Q. In addition, at both March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included letters of credit hedged by derivative transactions and managed on a market risk basis of $3.8 billion.

45

Repurchase liability

In connection with the Firm’s loan sale and securitization activities with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “GSEs”) and other loan sale and private-label securitization transactions, the Firm has made representations and warranties that the loans sold meet certain requirements. The Firm may be, and has been, required to repurchase loans and/or indemnify the GSEs and other investors for losses due to material breaches of these representations and warranties; however, predominantly all of the repurchase demands received by the Firm and the Firm’s losses realized to date are related to loans sold to the GSEs.

From 2005 to 2008, excluding Washington Mutual, loans sold to the GSEs subject to certain representations and warranties for which the Firm may be liable were approximately $380 billion; this amount represents the principal amount sold and has not been adjusted for subsequent activity, such as borrower repayments of principal or repurchases completed to date. In addition, from 2005 to 2008, Washington Mutual sold approximately $150 billion of loans to the GSEs subject to certain representations and warranties. Subsequent to the Firm’s acquisition of certain assets and liabilities of Washington Mutual from the FDIC in September 2008, the Firm resolved and/or limited certain current and future repurchase demands for loans sold to the GSEs by Washington Mutual, although it remains the Firm’s position that such obligations remain with the FDIC receivership. For additional information regarding loans sold to the GSEs, see page 98 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

The Firm also sells loans in securitization transactions with Ginnie Mae; these loans are typically insured or guaranteed by a government agency. The Firm, in its role as servicer, may elect to repurchase delinquent loans securitized by Ginnie Mae; however, amounts due under the terms of these repurchased loans continue to be insured and the reimbursement of insured amounts is proceeding normally. Accordingly, the Firm has not recorded any repurchase liability related to these loans.

From 2005 to 2008, the Firm and certain acquired entities made certain loan level representations and warranties in connection with approximately $450 billion of residential mortgage loans that were sold or deposited into private-label securitizations. Of the $450 billion originally sold or deposited (including $165 billion by Washington Mutual, as to which the Firm maintains that certain of the repurchase obligations remain with the FDIC receivership), approximately $185 billion of principal has been repaid (including $65 billion related to Washington Mutual). Approximately $85 billion of the principal has been liquidated (including $30 billion related to Washington Mutual), with an average loss severity of 57%. The remaining outstanding principal balance of these loans (including Washington Mutual) was, as of March 31, 2011, approximately $180 billion of which $65 billion was 60 days or more past due. The remaining outstanding principal balance of loans related to Washington Mutual was approximately $70 billion of which $24 billion were 60 days or more past due. For additional information regarding loans sold to private investors, see page 98 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

To date, loan-level repurchase demands in private-label securitizations have been limited. As a result, the Firm’s repurchase reserve primarily relates to loan sales to the GSEs and is predominantly calculated based on the Firm’s repurchase activity experience with the GSEs. While it is possible that the volume of repurchase demands in private-label securitizations will increase in the future, the Firm cannot offer a reasonable estimate of those future demands based on historical experience to date. To the extent that repurchase demands are received related to loans that the Firm purchased from third parties that remain viable, the Firm typically will have the right to seek a recovery of related repurchase losses from the related third party. Thus far, claims related to private-label securitizations (including claims from insurers that have guaranteed certain obligations of the securitization trusts) have generally manifested themselves through securities-related litigation. The Firm separately evaluates its exposure to such litigation in establishing its litigation reserves. For additional information regarding litigation, see Note 23 on pages 160–169 of this Form 10-Q.

46

Estimated Repurchase Liability

To estimate the Firm’s repurchase liability arising from breaches of representations and warranties, the Firm considers:

(i)	the level of current unresolved repurchase demands and mortgage insurance rescission notices,
(ii)	estimated probable future repurchase demands considering historical experience,
(iii)	the potential ability of the Firm to cure the defects identified in the repurchase demands (“cure rate”),
(iv)	the estimated severity of loss upon repurchase of the loan or collateral, make-whole settlement, or indemnification,
(v)	the Firm’s potential ability to recover its losses from third-party originators, and
(vi)	the terms of agreements with certain mortgage insurers and other parties.

Based on these factors, the Firm has recognized a repurchase liability of $3.5 billion and $3.3 billion as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively. For further discussion of the repurchase demand process and the approach used by the Firm to estimate the repurchase liability, see Repurchase liability on pages 98–101 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

The following table provides information about outstanding repurchase demands and mortgage insurance rescission notices, excluding those related to Washington Mutual, at each of the past five quarter-end dates.

Outstanding repurchase demands and mortgage insurance rescission notices by counterparty type

	March 31,			December 31,			September 30,			June 30,			March 31,
(in millions)	2011			2010			2010			2010			2010
GSEs and other	$	1,114		$	1,071		$	1,063		$	1,331		$	1,358
Mortgage insurers		677			624			556			998			1,090
Overlapping population(a)		(83	)		(63	)		(69	)		(220	)		(232	)
Total	$	1,708		$	1,632		$	1,550		$	2,109		$	2,216

(a) Because the GSEs may make repurchase demands based on mortgage insurance rescission notices that remain unresolved, certain loans may be subject to both an unresolved mortgage insurance rescission notice and an unresolved repurchase demand.

The following tables show the trend in repurchase demands and mortgage insurance rescission notices received by loan origination vintage, excluding those related to Washington Mutual, for the past five quarters. While repurchase demands declined in the first quarter of 2011 relative to preceding quarters, the Firm does not believe that this represents a trend; instead, the Firm expects repurchase demands to remain at elevated levels.

Quarterly repurchase demands received by loan origination vintage

	March 31,		December 31,		September 30,		June 30,		March 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010		2010		2010		2010
Pre-2005	$	15	$	38	$	31	$	35	$	16
2005		40		72		67		94		50
2006		137		195		185		234		189
2007		367		537		498		521		403
2008		249		254		191		186		98
Post-2008		94		65		46		53		20
Total repurchase demands received	$	902	$	1,161	$	1,018	$	1,123	$	776

Quarterly mortgage insurance rescission notices received by loan origination vintage

	March 31,		December 31,		September 30,		June 30,		March 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010		2010		2010		2010
Pre-2005	$	4	$	3	$	4	$	4	$	2
2005		30		7		5		7		18
2006		49		40		39		39		57
2007		125		113		105		155		203
2008		49		49		44		52		60
Post-2008		1		1		—		—		—
Total mortgage insurance rescissions received(a)	$	258	$	213	$	197	$	257	$	340

(a) Mortgage insurance rescissions may ultimately result in a repurchase demand from the GSEs on a lagged basis. This table includes mortgage insurance rescissions where the GSEs have also issued a repurchase demand.

47

Because the Firm has demonstrated an ability to cure certain types of defects more frequently than others (e.g., missing documents), trends in the types of defects identified as well as the Firm’s historical data are considered in estimating the future cure rate. Since the beginning of 2010, the Firm’s overall cure rate, excluding Washington Mutual, has been approximately 50%. While the actual cure rate may vary from quarter to quarter, the Firm expects that the overall cure rate will remain in the 40—50% range for the foreseeable future.

The Firm has not observed a direct relationship between the type of defect that causes the breach of representations and warranties and the severity of the realized loss. Therefore, the loss severity assumption is estimated using the Firm’s historical experience and projections regarding home price appreciation. Actual loss severities on finalized repurchases and “make-whole” settlements to date, excluding any related to Washington Mutual, currently average approximately 50%, but may vary from quarter to quarter based on the characteristics of the underlying loans and changes in home prices.

When a loan was originated by a third-party correspondent, the Firm typically has the right to seek a recovery of related repurchase losses from the correspondent originator. Correspondent-originated loans comprise approximately 40% of loans underlying outstanding repurchase demands, excluding those related to Washington Mutual. The actual third-party recovery rate may vary from quarter to quarter based upon the underlying mix of correspondents (e.g., active, inactive, out-of-business originators) from which recoveries are being sought.

Substantially all of the estimates and assumptions underlying the Firm’s established methodology for computing its recorded repurchase liability—including the amount of probable future demands from purchasers (which is in part based on the historical experience), the ability of the Firm to cure identified defects, the severity of loss upon repurchase or foreclosure and recoveries from third parties—require application of a significant level of management judgment. Estimating the repurchase liability is further complicated by limited and rapidly changing historical data and uncertainty surrounding numerous external factors, including: (i) economic factors (for example, further declines in home prices and changes in borrower behavior may lead to increases in the number of defaults, the severity of losses, or both), and (ii) the level of future demands, which is dependent, in part, on actions taken by third parties, such as the GSEs and mortgage insurers. While the Firm uses the best information available to it in estimating its repurchase liability, the estimation process is inherently uncertain, imprecise and potentially volatile as additional information is obtained and external factors continue to evolve.

The following table summarizes the change in the repurchase liability for each of the periods presented.

Summary of changes in repurchase liability

Three months ended March 31, (in millions)	2011			2010
Repurchase liability at beginning of period	$	3,285		$	1,705
Realized losses(a)		(231	)		(246	)
Provision for repurchase losses		420			523
Repurchase liability at end of period	$	3,474		$	1,982

(a) Includes principal losses and accrued interest on repurchased loans, “make-whole” settlements, settlements with claimants, and certain related expenses. Make-whole settlements were $115 million and $105 million at March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

The following table summarizes the total unpaid principal balance of repurchases during the periods indicated.

Unpaid principal balance of loan repurchases^(a)

Three months ended March 31, (in millions)	2011		2010
Ginnie Mae(b)	$	1,485	$	2,010
GSEs and other(c)(d)		212		322
Total	$	1,697	$	2,332

(a)	Excludes mortgage insurers. While the rescission of mortgage insurance may ultimately trigger a repurchase demand, the mortgage insurers themselves do not present repurchase demands to the Firm.
(b)	In substantially all cases, these repurchases represent the Firm’s voluntary repurchase of certain delinquent loans from loan pools or packages as permitted by Ginnie Mae guidelines (i.e., they do not result from repurchase demands due to breaches of representations and warranties). In certain cases, the Firm repurchases these delinquent loans as it continues to service them and/or manage the foreclosure process in accordance with applicable requirements of Ginnie Mae, the FHA, RHA and/or the VA.
(c)	Predominantly all of the repurchases related to GSEs.
(d)	Nonaccrual loans held-for-investment included $347 million and $270 million at March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, of loans repurchased as a result of breaches of representations and warranties.

48

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT

The following discussion of JPMorgan Chase’s capital management highlights developments since December 31, 2010, and should be read in conjunction with Capital Management on pages 102–106 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

The Firm’s capital management objectives are to hold capital sufficient to:

• Cover all material risks underlying the Firm’s business activities;

• Maintain “well-capitalized” status under regulatory requirements;

• Achieve debt rating targets;

• Retain flexibility to take advantage of future investment opportunities; and

• Build and invest in businesses, even in a highly stressed environment.

Regulatory capital

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”) establishes capital requirements, including well-capitalized standards, for the consolidated financial holding company. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) establishes similar capital requirements and standards for the Firm’s national banks, including JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Chase Bank USA, N.A. As of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, JPMorgan Chase and all of its banking subsidiaries were well-capitalized and met all capital requirements to which each was subject.

The following table presents the regulatory capital, assets and risk-based capital ratios for JPMorgan Chase and its significant banking subsidiaries at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010. These amounts are determined in accordance with regulations issued by the Federal Reserve and/or OCC.

	JPMorgan Chase & Co.(i)						JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.(i)						Chase Bank USA, N.A.(i)
																			Well-			Minimum
(in millions,	March 31,			Dec. 31,			March 31,			Dec. 31,			March 31,			Dec. 31,			capitalized			capital
except ratios)	2011			2010			2011			2010			2011			2010			ratios(j)			ratios(j)
Regulatory capital
Tier 1(a)	$	147,234		$	142,450		$	92,594		$	91,764		$	13,330		$	12,966
Total		186,417			182,216			131,545			130,444			16,881			16,659
Tier 1 common(b)		119,598			114,763			91,810			90,981			13,330			12,966
Assets
Risk-weighted(c)(d)		1,192,536			1,174,978			980,051			965,897			107,160			116,992
Adjusted average(e)		2,041,153			2,024,515			1,621,263			1,611,486			112,349			117,368
Capital ratios
Tier 1(a)(f)		12.3	%		12.1	%		9.4	%		9.5	%		12.4	%		11.1	%		6.0	%		4.0	%
Total(g)		15.6			15.5			13.4			13.5			15.8			14.2			10.0			8.0
Tier 1 leverage(h)		7.2			7.0			5.7			5.7			11.9			11.0			5.0	(k)		3.0	(l)
Tier 1 common(b)		10.0			9.8			9.4			9.4			12.4			11.1		NA			NA

(a)	At March 31, 2011, for JPMorgan Chase and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., trust preferred capital debt securities were $19.7 billion and $600 million, respectively. If these securities were excluded from the calculation at March 31, 2011, Tier 1 capital would be $127.5 billion and $92.0 billion, respectively, and the Tier 1 capital ratio would be 10.7% and 9.4%, respectively. At March 31, 2011, Chase Bank USA, N.A. had no trust preferred capital debt securities.
(b)	The Tier 1 common ratio is Tier 1 common capital divided by risk-weighted assets. Tier 1 common capital is defined as Tier 1 capital less elements of capital not in the form of common equity, such as perpetual preferred stock, noncontrolling interests in subsidiaries, and trust preferred capital debt securities. Tier 1 common capital, a non-GAAP financial measure, is used by banking regulators, investors and analysts to assess and compare the quality and composition of the Firm’s capital with the capital of other financial services companies. The Firm uses Tier 1 common capital along with the other capital measures to assess and monitor its capital position.
(c)	Risk-weighted assets consist of on– and off–balance sheet assets that are assigned to one of several broad risk categories and weighted by factors representing their risk and potential for default. On–balance sheet assets are risk-weighted based on the perceived credit risk associated with the obligor or counterparty, the nature of any collateral, and the guarantor, if any. Off–balance sheet assets such as lending-related commitments, guarantees, derivatives and other off–balance sheet positions are risk-weighted by multiplying the contractual amount by the appropriate credit conversion factor to determine the on–balance sheet credit-equivalent amount, which is then risk-weighted based on the same factors used for on–balance sheet assets. Risk-weighted assets also incorporate a measure for the market risk related to applicable trading assets–debt and equity instruments, and foreign exchange and commodity derivatives. The resulting risk-weighted values for each of the risk categories are then aggregated to determine total risk-weighted assets.
(d)	Includes off–balance sheet risk-weighted assets at March 31, 2011, of $294.6 billion, $283.3 billion and $31 million, and at December 31, 2010, of $282.9 billion, $274.2 billion and $31 million, for JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Chase Bank USA, N.A., respectively.
(e)	Adjusted average assets, for purposes of calculating the leverage ratio, include total quarterly average assets adjusted for unrealized gains/(losses) on securities, less deductions for disallowed goodwill and other intangible assets, investments in certain subsidiaries, and the total adjusted carrying value of nonfinancial equity investments that are subject to deductions from Tier 1 capital.
(f)	Tier 1 capital ratio is Tier 1 capital divided by risk-weighted assets. Tier 1 capital consists of common stockholders’ equity, perpetual preferred stock, noncontrolling interests in subsidiaries, and trust preferred capital debt securities, less goodwill and certain other adjustments.

49

(g)	Total capital ratio is Total capital divided by risk-weighted assets. Total capital is Tier 1 capital plus Tier 2 capital. Tier 2 capital consists of preferred stock not qualifying as Tier 1, subordinated long-term debt and other instruments qualifying as Tier 2, and the aggregate allowance for credit losses up to a certain percentage of risk-weighted assets.
(h)	Tier 1 leverage ratio is Tier 1 capital divided by adjusted quarterly average assets.
(i)	Asset and capital amounts for JPMorgan Chase’s banking subsidiaries reflect intercompany transactions; whereas the respective amounts for JPMorgan Chase reflect the elimination of intercompany transactions.
(j)	As defined by the regulations issued by the Federal Reserve, OCC and FDIC.
(k)	Represents requirements for banking subsidiaries pursuant to regulations issued under the FDIC Improvement Act. There is no Tier 1 leverage component in the definition of a well-capitalized bank holding company.
(l)	The minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio for bank holding companies and banks is 3% or 4%, depending on factors specified in regulations issued by the Federal Reserve and OCC.
	Note: Rating agencies allow measures of capital to be adjusted upward for deferred tax liabilities, which have resulted from both nontaxable business combinations and from tax-deductible goodwill. At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, the Firm had deferred tax liabilities resulting from nontaxable business combinations totaling $610 million and $647 million, respectively; and deferred tax liabilities resulting from tax-deductible goodwill of $2.0 billion and $1.9 billion, respectively.

A reconciliation of Total stockholders’ equity to Tier 1 common capital, Tier 1 capital and Total qualifying capital is presented in the table below.

Risk-based capital components and assets	March 31,			December 31,
(in millions)	2011			2010
Total stockholders’ equity	$	180,598		$	176,106
Less: Preferred stock		7,800			7,800
Common stockholders’ equity		172,798			168,306
Effect of certain items in accumulated other comprehensive income/(loss) excluded from Tier 1 common equity		(434	)		(748	)
Less: Goodwill(a)		46,863			46,915
Fair value DVA on derivative and structured note liabilities related to the Firm’s credit quality		1,236			1,261
Investments in certain subsidiaries and other		1,184			1,032
Other intangible assets(a)		3,483			3,587
Tier 1 common		119,598			114,763
Preferred stock		7,800			7,800
Qualifying hybrid securities and noncontrolling interests(b)		19,836			19,887
Total Tier 1 capital		147,234			142,450
Long-term debt and other instruments qualifying as Tier 2		24,250			25,018
Qualifying allowance for credit losses		15,152			14,959
Adjustment for investments in certain subsidiaries and other		(219	)		(211	)
Total Tier 2 capital		39,183			39,766
Total qualifying capital	$	186,417		$	182,216
Risk-weighted assets	$	1,192,536		$	1,174,978
Total adjusted average assets	$	2,041,153		$	2,024,515

(a)	Goodwill and other intangible assets are net of any associated deferred tax liabilities.
(b)	Primarily includes trust preferred capital debt securities of certain business trusts.

The Firm’s Tier 1 common capital was $119.6 billion at March 31, 2011, compared with $114.8 billion at December 31, 2010, an increase of $4.8 billion. The increase was predominantly due to net income (adjusted for DVA) of $5.6 billion, and net issuances and commitments to issue common stock under the Firm’s employee stock-based compensation plans of $532 million. The increase was partially offset by $1.2 billion of dividends on common and preferred stock and $95 million of repurchases of common stock. The Firm’s Tier 1 capital was $147.2 billion at March 31, 2011, compared with $142.5 billion at December 31, 2010, an increase of $4.7 billion. The increase in Tier 1 capital reflected the increase in Tier 1 common. Additional information regarding the Firm’s capital ratios and the federal regulatory capital standards to which it is subject is presented in Note 29 on pages 273–274 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Basel II

The minimum risk-based capital requirements adopted by the U.S. federal banking agencies follow the Capital Accord of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (“Basel I”). In 2004, the Basel Committee published a revision to the Accord (“Basel II”). The goal of the Basel II Framework is to provide more risk-sensitive regulatory capital calculations and promote enhanced risk management practices among large, internationally active banking organizations. U.S. banking regulators published a final Basel II rule in December 2007, which requires JPMorgan Chase to implement Basel II at the holding company level, as well as at certain of its key U.S. bank subsidiaries.

50

Prior to full implementation of the new Basel II Framework, JPMorgan Chase is required to complete a qualification period of four consecutive quarters during which it needs to demonstrate that it meets the requirements of the rule to the satisfaction of its primary U.S. banking regulators. JPMorgan Chase is currently in the qualification period and expects to be in compliance with all relevant Basel II rules within the established timelines. In addition, the Firm has adopted, and will continue to adopt, based on various established timelines, Basel II rules in certain non-U.S. jurisdictions, as required.

Basel III

In addition to the Basel II Framework, on December 16, 2010, the Basel Committee issued the final version of the Capital Accord, called “Basel III”, which revised Basel II by among other things, narrowing the definition of capital, increasing capital requirements for specific exposures, introducing short-term liquidity coverage and term funding standards, and establishing an international leverage ratio. The Basel Committee also announced higher capital ratio requirements under Basel III which provide that the common equity requirement will be increased to 7%, comprised of a minimum of 4.5% plus a 2.5% capital conservation buffer.

In addition, the U.S. federal banking agencies have published for public comment proposed risk-based capital floors pursuant to the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act to establish a permanent Basel I floor under Basel II / Basel III capital calculations.

The Firm fully expects to be in compliance with the higher Basel III capital standards when they become effective on January 1, 2019, as well as any additional Dodd-Frank Act capital requirements when they are implemented. The Firm estimates that its Tier 1 common ratio under Basel III rules (including the changes for calculating capital on trading assets and securitizations) would be 7.3% as of March 31, 2011. Management considers this estimate, which is a non-GAAP financial measure, as a key measure to assess the Firm’s capital position in conjunction with its capital ratios under Basel I requirements, in order to enable management, investors and analysts to compare the Firm’s capital under the Basel III capital standards with similar estimates provided by other financial services companies.

The Firm’s estimate of its Tier 1 common ratio under Basel III reflect its current understanding of the Basel III rules and the application of such rules to its businesses as currently conducted. The Firm’s understanding of the Basel III rules are based upon information currently published by the Basel Committee and U.S. federal banking agencies. Accordingly, the Firm’s estimates will evolve over time as the Firm’s businesses change, and as a result of further rule-making on Basel III implementation from U.S. federal banking agencies. The Firm also believes it may need to modify the liquidity profile of its assets and liabilities in response to the short-term liquidity coverage and term funding standards contained in Basel III. Management believes that the basis for its calculation of its estimates of Tier 1 common capital and risk-weighted assets under Basel III rules differs so significantly from the current Tier 1 capital and risk-weighted assets calculation under the Basel I rules that numerical reconciliation between the two calculations would not be meaningful.

The Basel III revisions governing liquidity and capital requirements are subject to prolonged observation and transition periods. The observation periods for both the liquidity coverage ratio and term funding standards begin in 2011, with implementation in 2015 and 2018, respectively. The transition period for banks to meet the revised common equity requirement will begin in 2013, with implementation on January 1, 2019. The Firm will continue to monitor the ongoing rule-making process to assess both the timing and the impact of Basel III on its businesses and financial condition.

Broker-dealer regulatory capital

JPMorgan Chase’s principal U.S. broker-dealer subsidiaries are J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (“JPMorgan Securities”), and J.P. Morgan Clearing Corp. (“JPMorgan Clearing”). JPMorgan Clearing is a subsidiary of JPMorgan Securities and provides clearing and settlement services. JPMorgan Securities and JPMorgan Clearing are each subject to Rule 15c3-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Net Capital Rule”). JPMorgan Securities and JPMorgan Clearing are also registered as futures commission merchants and subject to Rule 1.17 of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”).

JPMorgan Securities and JPMorgan Clearing have elected to compute their minimum net capital requirements in accordance with the “Alternative Net Capital Requirements” of the Net Capital Rule. At March 31, 2011, JPMorgan Securities’ net capital, as defined by the Net Capital Rule, was $7.8 billion, exceeding the minimum requirement by $7.3 billion; and JPMorgan Clearing’s net capital was $6.1 billion, exceeding the minimum requirement by $4.2 billion.

In addition to its minimum net capital requirement, JPMorgan Securities is required to hold tentative net capital in excess of $1.0 billion and is also required to notify the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in the event that tentative net capital is less than $5.0 billion, in accordance with the market and credit risk standards of Appendix E of the Net Capital Rule. As of March 31, 2011, JPMorgan Securities had tentative net capital in excess of the minimum and notification requirements.

51

Economic risk capital

JPMorgan Chase assesses its capital adequacy relative to the risks underlying its business activities, using internal risk-assessment methodologies. The Firm measures economic capital primarily based on four risk factors: credit, market, operational and private equity risk.

Economic risk capital	Quarterly Averages
(in billions)	1Q11		4Q10		1Q10
Credit risk	$	48.6	$	50.9	$	49.3
Market risk		15.1		14.9		13.8
Operational risk		8.3		7.3		7.4
Private equity risk		7.2		6.9		5.2
Economic risk capital		79.2		80.0		75.7
Goodwill		48.8		48.8		48.6
Other(a)		41.4		38.0		31.8
Total common stockholders’ equity	$	169.4	$	166.8	$	156.1

(a) Reflects additional capital required, in the Firm’s view, to meet its regulatory and debt rating objectives.

Line of business equity

Equity for a line of business represents the amount the Firm believes the business would require if it were operating independently, incorporating sufficient capital to address regulatory capital requirements (including Basel III Tier 1 common capital requirements) economic risk measures, and capital levels for similarly rated peers. Capital is also allocated to each line of business for, among other things, goodwill and other intangibles associated with acquisitions effected by the line of business. ROE is measured and internal targets for expected returns are established as key measures of a business segment’s performance. Effective January 1, 2011, capital allocated to CS was reduced by $2.0 billion, to $13.0 billion, largely reflecting portfolio runoff and the improving risk profile of the business; capital allocated to TSS was increased by $500 million, to $7.0 billion, reflecting growth in the underlying business. The Firm continues to assess the level of capital required for each line of business, as well as the assumptions and methodologies used to allocate capital to the business segments, and further refinements may be implemented in future periods.

Line of business equity
(in billions)	March 31, 2011		December 31, 2010
Investment Bank	$	40.0	$	40.0
Retail Financial Services		28.0		28.0
Card Services		13.0		15.0
Commercial Banking		8.0		8.0
Treasury & Securities Services		7.0		6.5
Asset Management		6.5		6.5
Corporate/Private Equity		70.3		64.3
Total common stockholders’ equity	$	172.8	$	168.3

Line of business equity	Quarterly Averages
(in billions)	1Q11		4Q10		1Q10
Investment Bank	$	40.0	$	40.0	$	40.0
Retail Financial Services		28.0		28.0		28.0
Card Services		13.0		15.0		15.0
Commercial Banking		8.0		8.0		8.0
Treasury & Securities Services		7.0		6.5		6.5
Asset Management		6.5		6.5		6.5
Corporate/Private Equity		66.9		62.8		52.1
Total common stockholders’ equity	$	169.4	$	166.8	$	156.1

Capital actions

Dividends

On March 18, 2011, the Board of Directors increased the Firm’s quarterly common stock dividend from $0.05 to $0.25 per share, effective with the dividend paid on April 30, 2011, to shareholders of record on April 6, 2011. The Firm’s common stock dividend policy reflects JPMorgan Chase’s earnings outlook; desired dividend payout ratio; capital objectives of maintaining a Basel I Tier 1 common ratio of at least 9.0% and meeting Basel III requirements substantially ahead of time; and alternative investment opportunities. The Firm’s current expectation is to return to a payout ratio of approximately 30% of normalized earnings over time. When management and the Board determine that it is appropriate to consider further increasing the common stock dividend, the Firm expects to review those plans with its regulators

52

before taking action. For a further discussion of the Firm’s dividend payments, see Dividends on page 106 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Stock repurchases

On March 18, 2011, the Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of up to $15.0 billion of the Firm’s common stock, of which up to $8.0 billion is approved for 2011. The authorization commenced on March 22, 2011, and replaced the Firm’s previous $10.0 billion repurchase program. During the three months ended March 31, 2011, the Firm repurchased an aggregate of 2 million shares for $95 million at an average price per share of $45.66. For the four months ended April 30, 2011, the Firm has repurchased an aggregate of 18 million shares for $820 million at an average price per share of $45.11. As of March 31, 2011, $14.9 billion of authorized repurchase capacity remained, of which $7.9 billion of approved capacity remains for use during 2011.

Management and the Board will continue to assess and make decisions regarding alternatives for deploying capital, as appropriate, over the course of the year. Any planned use of the repurchase program over the repurchases approved for 2011, will be reviewed by the Firm with the banking regulators before taking action. For a further discussion of the Firm’s stock repurchase program, see Stock repurchases on page 106 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

The Firm may, from time to time, enter into written trading plans under Rule 10b5-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to facilitate repurchases in accordance with the repurchase program. A Rule 10b5-1 repurchase plan allows the Firm to repurchase its equity during periods when it would not otherwise be repurchasing common stock — for example during internal trading “black-out periods.” All purchases under a Rule 10b5-1 plan must be made according to a predefined plan established when the Firm is not aware of material nonpublic information. For additional information regarding repurchases of the Firm’s equity securities, see Part II, Item 2, Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds, on pages 181–182 of this Form 10-Q.

RISK MANAGEMENT

Risk is an inherent part of JPMorgan Chase’s business activities. The Firm’s risk management framework and governance structure are intended to provide comprehensive controls and ongoing management of the major risks inherent in its business activities. The Firm employs a holistic approach to risk management to ensure the broad spectrum of risk types are considered in managing its business activities. The Firm’s risk management framework is intended to create a culture of risk awareness and personal responsibility throughout the Firm where collaboration, discussion, escalation and sharing of information is encouraged.

The Firm’s overall risk appetite is established in the context of the Firm’s capital, earnings power, and diversified business model. The Firm employs a formalized risk appetite framework to clearly link risk appetite and return targets, controls and capital management. There are eight major types of risk identified in the business activities of the Firm: liquidity, credit, market, interest rate, operational, legal and reputation, fiduciary, and private equity risk.

For further discussion of these risks, as well as how they are managed by the Firm, see Risk Management on pages 107–109 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report and the information below.

LIQUIDITY RISK MANAGEMENT

The following discussion of JPMorgan Chase’s liquidity risk management framework highlights developments since December 31, 2010, and should be read in conjunction with pages 110–115 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

The ability to maintain surplus levels of liquidity through economic cycles is crucial to financial services companies, particularly during periods of adverse conditions. The Firm’s funding strategy is intended to ensure liquidity and diversity of funding sources to meet actual and contingent liabilities through both normal and stress periods.

JPMorgan Chase’s primary sources of liquidity include a diversified deposit base, which was $995.8 billion at March 31, 2011, and access to the equity capital markets and long-term unsecured and secured funding sources, including through asset securitizations and borrowings from FHLBs. Additionally, JPMorgan Chase maintains significant amounts of highly liquid, unencumbered assets. The Firm actively monitors the availability of funding in the wholesale markets across various geographic regions and in various currencies. The Firm’s ability to generate funding from a broad range of sources in a variety of geographic locations and in a range of tenors is intended to enhance financial flexibility and limit funding concentration risk.

53

Management considers the Firm’s liquidity position to be strong, based on its liquidity metrics as of March 31, 2011, and believes that the Firm’s unsecured and secured funding capacity is sufficient to meet its on— and off—balance sheet obligations. The Firm was able to access the funding markets as needed during the three months ended March 31, 2011.

Governance

The Firm’s governance process is designed to ensure that its liquidity position remains strong. The Asset-Liability Committee reviews and approves the Firm’s liquidity policy and contingency funding plan. Corporate Treasury formulates and is responsible for executing the Firm’s liquidity policy and contingency funding plan as well as measuring, monitoring, reporting and managing the Firm’s liquidity risk profile. JPMorgan Chase centralizes the management of global funding and liquidity risk within Corporate Treasury to maximize liquidity access, minimize funding costs and enhance global identification and coordination of liquidity risk. This centralized approach involves frequent communication with the business segments, disciplined management of liquidity at the parent holding company, comprehensive market-based pricing of all assets and liabilities, continuous balance sheet monitoring, frequent stress testing of liquidity sources, and frequent reporting to and communication with senior management and the Board of Directors regarding the Firm’s liquidity position.

Liquidity monitoring

The Firm employs a variety of metrics to monitor and manage liquidity. One set of analyses used by the Firm relates to the timing of liquidity sources versus liquidity uses (e.g., funding gap analysis and parent holding company funding, as discussed below). A second set of analyses focuses on measurements of the Firm’s reliance on short-term unsecured funding as a percentage of total liabilities, as well as the relationship of short-term unsecured funding to highly liquid assets, the deposits-to-loans ratio and other balance sheet measures.

The Firm performs regular liquidity stress tests as part of its liquidity monitoring. The purpose of the liquidity stress tests is intended to ensure sufficient liquidity for the Firm under both idiosyncratic and systemic market stress conditions. These scenarios measure the Firm’s liquidity position across a full-year horizon by analyzing the net funding gaps resulting from contractual and contingent cash and collateral outflows versus the Firm’s ability to generate additional liquidity by pledging or selling excess collateral and issuing unsecured debt. The scenarios are produced for the parent holding company and major bank subsidiaries as well as the Firm’s major U.S. broker-dealer subsidiaries.

The idiosyncratic stress scenario employed by the Firm is a JPMorgan Chase-specific event that evaluates the Firm’s net funding gap after a short-term ratings downgrade to A-2/P-2. The systemic market stress scenario evaluates the Firm’s net funding gap during a period of severe market stress similar to market conditions in 2008 and assumes the Firm is not uniquely stressed versus its peers. The Firm’s liquidity position is strong under the Firm-defined stress scenarios described above.

Parent holding company

Liquidity monitoring of the parent holding company takes into consideration regulatory restrictions that limit the extent to which bank subsidiaries may extend credit to the parent holding company and other nonbank subsidiaries. Excess cash generated by parent holding company issuance activity is used to purchase liquid collateral through reverse repurchase agreements or is placed with both bank and nonbank subsidiaries in the form of deposits and advances to satisfy a portion of subsidiary funding requirements. The Firm’s liquidity management is also intended to ensure that its subsidiaries have the ability to generate replacement funding in the event the parent holding company requires repayment of the aforementioned deposits and advances.

The Firm closely monitors the ability of the parent holding company to meet all of its obligations with liquid sources of cash or cash equivalents for an extended period of time without access to the unsecured funding markets. The Firm targets pre-funding of parent holding company obligations for at least 12 months; however, due to conservative liquidity management actions taken by the Firm in the current environment, the current pre-funding of such obligations is significantly greater than target.

Global Liquidity Reserve

In addition to the parent holding company, the Firm maintains a significant amount of liquidity — primarily at its bank subsidiaries, but also at its nonbank subsidiaries. The Global Liquidity Reserve represents consolidated sources of available liquidity to the Firm, including cash on deposit at central banks, and cash proceeds reasonably expected to be received in secured financings of highly liquid, unencumbered securities — such as government-issued debt, government- and FDIC-guaranteed corporate debt, U.S. government agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”). The liquidity amount estimated to be realized from secured financings is based on management’s current judgment and assessment of the Firm’s ability to quickly raise secured financings. The Global Liquidity Reserve also includes the Firm’s borrowing capacity at various FHLBs, the Federal Reserve Bank discount window and various other central banks from

54

collateral pledged by the Firm to such banks. Although considered as a source of available liquidity, the Firm does not view borrowing capacity at the Federal Reserve Bank discount window and various other central banks as a primary source of funding. As of March 31, 2011, the Global Liquidity Reserve was estimated to be approximately $316 billion.

In addition to the Global Liquidity Reserve, the Firm has significant amounts of other high-quality, marketable securities available to raise liquidity, such as corporate debt and equity securities.

Funding

Sources of funds

A key strength of the Firm is its diversified deposit franchise through the RFS, CB, TSS and AM lines of business, which provides a stable source of funding and decreases reliance on the wholesale markets. As of March 31, 2011, total deposits for the Firm were $995.8 billion, compared with $930.4 billion at December 31, 2010. Average total deposits for the Firm were $930.4 billion and $877.5 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The Firm typically experiences higher customer deposit inflows at period ends. A significant portion of the Firm’s deposits are retail deposits (38% and 40% at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively), which are considered particularly stable as they are less sensitive to interest rate changes or market volatility. A significant portion of the Firm’s wholesale deposits are also considered stable sources of funding due to the nature of the relationships from which they are generated, particularly customers’ operating service relationships with the Firm. As of March 31, 2011, the Firm’s deposits-to-loans ratio was 145%, compared with 134% at December 31, 2010. For further discussions of deposit and liability balance trends, see the discussion of the results for the Firm’s business segments and the Balance Sheet Analysis on page 15 and 41–43, respectively, of this Form 10-Q.

Additional sources of funding include a variety of unsecured and secured short-term and long-term instruments. Short-term unsecured funding sources include federal funds and Eurodollars purchased, certificates of deposit, time deposits, commercial paper and other borrowed funds. Long-term unsecured funding sources include long-term debt, trust preferred capital debt securities, preferred stock and common stock.

The Firm’s short-term secured sources of funding consist of securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase and borrowings from the Chicago, Pittsburgh and San Francisco FHLBs. Secured long-term funding sources include asset-backed securitizations, and borrowings from the Chicago, Pittsburgh and San Francisco FHLBs.

Funding markets are evaluated on an ongoing basis to achieve an appropriate global balance of unsecured and secured funding at favorable rates.

Short-term funding

The Firm’s reliance on short-term unsecured funding sources is limited. Short-term unsecured funding sources include federal funds and Eurodollars purchased, which represent overnight funds; certificates of deposit; time deposits; commercial paper, which is generally issued in amounts not less than $100,000 and with maturities of 270 days or less; and other borrowed funds, which consist of demand notes, term federal funds purchased, and various other borrowings that generally have maturities of one year or less.

Total commercial paper liabilities for the Firm were $46.0 billion as of March 31, 2011, compared with $35.4 billion as of December 31, 2010. However, of those totals, $35.2 billion and $29.2 billion as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively, originated from deposits that customers chose to sweep into commercial paper liabilities as a cash management product offered by the Firm. Therefore, commercial paper liabilities sourced from wholesale funding markets were $10.8 billion as of March 31, 2011, compared with $6.2 billion as of December 31, 2010; in addition, the average balance of commercial paper liabilities sourced from wholesale funding markets was $8.4 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2011.

Securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase, generally mature between one day and three months, are secured predominantly by high-quality securities collateral, including government-issued debt, agency debt and agency MBS. The balances of securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase, which constitute a significant portion of the federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under repurchase agreements, was $282.3 billion as of March 31, 2011, compared with $273.3 billion as of December 31, 2010. There were no material differences between the average and period-end balances of securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase for the three months ended and as of March 31, 2011. The balances associated with securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase fluctuate over time due to customers’ investment and financing activities; the Firm’s demand for financing; the Firm’s matched book activity; the ongoing management of the mix of the Firm’s liabilities, including its secured and unsecured financing (for both the investment and trading portfolios); and other market and portfolio factors. For additional

55

information, see the Balance Sheet Analysis on pages 41–43, Note 12 on page 121 and Note 18 on page 153 of this Form 10-Q.

Total other borrowed funds for the Firm was $36.7 billion as of March 31, 2011, compared with $34.3 billion as of December 31, 2010. There were no material differences between the average and period-end balances of other borrowed funds for the three months ended and as of March 31, 2011.

Long-term funding and issuance

During the three months ended March 31, 2011, the Firm issued $13.0 billion of long-term debt, including $7.0 billion of senior notes issued in the U.S. market, $2.7 billion of senior notes issued in the non-U.S. markets, and $3.3 billion of IB structured notes. In addition, in April 2011, the Firm issued $4.4 billion of senior notes in the U.S. market. During the first three months of 2010, the Firm issued $10.9 billion of long-term debt, including $5.6 billion of senior notes issued in U.S. markets, $904 million of senior notes issued in non-U.S. markets and $4.4 billion of IB structured notes. During the three months ended March 31, 2011, $18.1 billion of long-term debt matured or was redeemed, including $5.6 billion of IB structured notes. During the first three months of 2010, $14.1 billion of long-term debt matured or was redeemed, including $7.4 billion of IB structured notes.

In addition to the unsecured long-term funding and issuances discussed above, the Firm securitizes consumer credit card loans, residential mortgages, auto loans and student loans for funding purposes. Loans securitized by the Firm’s wholesale businesses are related to client-driven transactions and are not considered to be a source of funding for the Firm. During the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, the Firm did not securitize any credit card loans, residential mortgage loans, auto loans or student loans through consolidated or nonconsolidated securitization trusts for funding purposes. In April 2011, the Firm securitized $500 million of credit card loans. During the three months ended March 31, 2011, $6.7 billion of loan securitizations matured or were redeemed, including $6.6 billion of credit card loan securitizations, $44 million of residential mortgage loan securitizations and $76 million of student loan securitizations. During the three months ended March 31, 2010, $6.7 billion of loan securitizations matured or were redeemed, including $6.5 billion of credit card loan securitizations, $43 million of residential mortgage loan securitizations, $84 million of student loan securitizations, and $39 million of auto loan securitizations. For further discussion of loan securitizations, see Note 15 on pages 141–149 in this Form 10-Q.

During the three months ended March 31, 2011, the Firm borrowed $4.0 billion of new long-term advances from the FHLBs, which were partially offset by $2.5 billion of maturities. For the three months ended March 31, 2010, the Firm borrowed $1.5 billion of new long-term advances from the FHLBs, which were more than offset by $8.5 billion of maturities.

Cash flows

Cash and due from banks was $23.5 billion and $31.4 billion at March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. These balances decreased by $4.1 billion from December 31, 2010, and increased by $5.2 billion from December 31, 2009, respectively. The following discussion highlights the major activities and transactions that affected JPMorgan Chase’s cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Cash flows from operating activities

JPMorgan Chase’s operating assets and liabilities support the Firm’s capital markets and lending activities, including the origination or purchase of loans initially designated as held-for-sale. Operating assets and liabilities can vary significantly in the normal course of business due to the amount and timing of cash flows, which are affected by client-driven activities, market conditions and trading strategies. Management believes cash flows from operations, available cash balances and the Firm’s ability to generate cash through short- and long-term borrowings are sufficient to fund the Firm’s operating liquidity needs.

For the three months ended March 31, 2011, net cash used in operating activities was $6.0 billion. This resulted from a decrease in trading liabilities — derivative payables largely due to a reduction in foreign exchange derivatives, which declined primarily due to the Japanese yen depreciation relative to the U.S. dollar, and a reduction in interest rate contracts as a result of higher interest rate yields during the quarter; an increase in trading assets — debt and equity instruments largely driven by growth in customer demand, market activity, including a significant level of new issuances, and rising global indices; and an increase in accrued interest and accounts receivable reflecting higher customer receivables in IB’s Prime Services business due to growth in client activity. Partially offsetting these cash outflows were an increase in trading liabilities — debt and equity instruments largely due to growth in customer demand, market activity and economic hedging activity, and a decrease in trading assets — derivative receivables largely due to reductions in the aforementioned foreign exchange derivatives and interest rate contracts. Additionally, cash used to acquire loans originated or purchased with an initial intent to sell was higher than proceeds from sales and paydowns of such loans. Net cash was provided by net income and from adjustments for non-cash items such as the provision for credit losses, depreciation and amortization, and stock-based compensation.

56

For the three months ended March 31, 2010, net cash provided by operating activities was $17.4 billion, primarily driven by a net increase in trading liabilities reflecting favorable developments in financial markets, as well as an increase in business activity in markets outside of the United States, partially offset by sales of debt securities. Also, net cash generated from operating activities was higher than net income, largely as a result of adjustments for non-cash items such as the provision for credit losses, stock-based compensation, and depreciation and amortization. Proceeds from sales and paydowns of loans originated or purchased with an initial intent to sell were higher than cash used to acquire such loans.

Cash flows from investing activities

The Firm’s investing activities predominantly include loans originated to be held for investment, the available-for-sale securities (“AFS”) portfolio and other short-term interest-earning assets. For the three months ended March 31, 2011, net cash of $65.8 billion was used in investing activities. This resulted from a significant increase in deposits with banks reflecting a higher level of deposit balances at Federal Reserve Banks largely the result of inflows of short-term wholesale deposits from TSS clients toward the end of March 2011, net purchases of AFS securities, largely due to repositioning of the portfolio in Corporate, in response to changes in the interest rate environment, and an increase in wholesale loans reflecting growth in client activity. Partially offsetting these cash outflows were a net decrease in loans reflecting seasonality and higher repayment rates of credit card loans, runoff of the Washington Mutual credit card portfolio, and lower consumer loans, excluding credit card, predominantly as a result of paydowns in RFS, and a decline in securities purchased under resale agreements, largely in IB, reflecting lower client financing needs.

For the three months ended March 31, 2010, net cash of $13.9 billion was used in investing activities. This was primarily due to an increase in securities purchased under resale agreements largely due to higher financing volume in IB resulting from increased client flows, partially offset by a net decrease in the loan portfolio, driven by seasonally lower charge volume on credit cards, continued runoff in the residential real estate portfolios, and repayments and loan sales, predominantly in IB. Proceeds from sales and maturities of AFS securities used in the Firm’s interest rate risk management activities were slightly higher than cash used to acquire such securities.

Cash flows from financing activities

The Firm’s financing activities primarily reflect cash flows related to taking customer deposits, and issuing long-term debt as well as preferred and common stock. For the three months ended March 31, 2011, net cash provided by financing activities was $67.3 billion. This was largely driven by an increase in deposits as a result of inflows of short-term wholesale deposits from TSS clients toward the end of March 2011, also contributing were growth in the level of retail deposits from the combined effect of seasonal factors such as tax refunds and bonus payments, and general growth in business volumes; an increase in commercial paper and other borrowed funds due to growth in the volume of liability balances in sweep accounts in connection with TSS’s cash management product, and modest incremental short-term borrowings by the Firm under cost-effective terms; and an increase in securities sold under repurchase agreements due to higher securities financing balances in connection with repositioning of the securities portfolio in Corporate. Partially offsetting these cash proceeds were net repayments of long-term borrowings, including a decline in long-term beneficial interests issued by consolidated VIEs due to maturities of Firm-sponsored credit card securitization transactions; the payments of cash dividends; and repurchases of common stock.

In the first three months of 2010, net cash provided by financing activities was $2.0 billion, which reflected increased cash proceeds from securities loaned or sold under repurchase agreements primarily to facilitate the increase in IB’s securities purchased under resale agreements. Cash was used as TSS deposits declined reflecting the normalization of deposit levels; offset partially by net inflows from existing customers and new business in CB, RFS and AM; a decline in short-term beneficial interest issued by consolidated VIEs; for net payments of long-term borrowings and trust preferred capital debt securities as new issuances were more than offset by payments; and for the payment of cash dividends.

Credit ratings

The cost and availability of financing are influenced by credit ratings. Reductions in these ratings could have an adverse effect on the Firm’s access to liquidity sources, increase the cost of funds, trigger additional collateral or funding requirements and decrease the number of investors and counterparties willing to lend to the Firm. Additionally, the Firm’s funding requirements for VIEs and other third-party commitments may be adversely affected by a decline in credit ratings. For additional information on the impact of a credit ratings downgrade on the funding requirements for VIEs, and on derivatives and collateral agreements, see Special-purpose entities on page 44, and Note 5 on pages 107–113, respectively, of this Form 10-Q.

Critical factors in maintaining high credit ratings include a stable and diverse earnings stream, strong capital ratios, strong credit quality and risk management controls, diverse funding sources, and disciplined liquidity monitoring procedures.

57

The credit ratings of the parent holding company and each of the Firm’s significant banking subsidiaries as of March 31, 2011, were as follows.

	Short-term debt						Senior long-term debt
	Moody’s		S&P		Fitch		Moody’s	S&P		Fitch
JPMorgan Chase & Co.	P	-1		A-1		F1+	Aa3		A+	AA–
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.	P	-1		A-1+		F1+	Aa1	AA–		AA–
Chase Bank USA, N.A.	P	-1		A-1+		F1+	Aa1	AA–		AA–

The senior unsecured ratings from Moody’s, S&P and Fitch on JPMorgan Chase and its principal bank subsidiaries remained unchanged at March 31, 2011, from December 31, 2010. On February 25, 2011, S&P revised its outlook on the Firm from negative to stable. At March 31, 2011, Moody’s outlook was negative, while S&P’s and Fitch’s outlook was stable.

If the Firm’s senior long-term debt ratings were downgraded by one notch, the Firm believes the incremental cost of funds or loss of funding would be manageable, within the context of current market conditions and the Firm’s liquidity resources. JPMorgan Chase’s unsecured debt does not contain requirements that would call for an acceleration of payments, maturities or changes in the structure of the existing debt, provide any limitations on future borrowings or require additional collateral, based on unfavorable changes in the Firm’s credit ratings, financial ratios, earnings, or stock price.

Several rating agencies have announced that they will be evaluating the effects of the financial regulatory reform legislation in order to determine the extent, if any, to which financial institutions, including the Firm, may be negatively impacted. There is no assurance the Firm’s credit ratings will not be downgraded in the future as a result of any such reviews.

58

CREDIT PORTFOLIO

For a further discussion on the Firm’s credit risk management framework, see pages 116-118 of JP Morgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

The following table presents JPMorgan Chase’s credit portfolio as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010. Total credit exposure of $1.8 trillion at March 31, 2011, increased by $23.8 billion from December 31, 2010, reflecting increases in the wholesale and consumer portfolios of $21.4 billion and $2.4 billion, respectively. During the first three months of 2011, increases in lending-related commitments and receivables from customers of $27.2 billion and $5.5 billion, respectively were partly offset by decreases in loans and derivative receivables of $6.9 billion and $1.7 billion, respectively.

The Firm provided credit to and raised capital of over $450 billion for our clients during the first three months of 2011. The Firm also originated mortgages to over 180,000 people; provided credit cards to approximately 2.6 million people; lent or increased credit to over 7,500 small businesses; lent to over 500 not-for-profit and government entities, including states, municipalities, hospitals and universities; extended or increased loan limits to approximately 1,500 middle market companies; and lent to or raised capital for more than 3,500 corporations.

In the table below, reported loans include loans retained (i.e., held-for-investment); loans held-for-sale (which are carried at the lower of cost or fair value, with changes in value recorded in noninterest revenue); and loans accounted for at fair value. For additional information on the Firm’s loans and derivative receivables, including the Firm’s accounting policies, see Notes 13 and 5 on pages 122–138 and 107–113, respectively, of this Form 10-Q. Average retained loan balances are used for net charge-off rate calculations.

	Credit												Three months ended March 31,
	exposure						Nonperforming(e)(f)										Average annual
	March 31,			Dec. 31,			March 31,			Dec. 31,			Net charge-offs				net charge-off rate(g)
(in millions, except ratios)	2011			2010			2011			2010			2011		2010		2011			2010
Total credit portfolio
Loans retained	$	675,437		$	685,498		$	13,152		$	14,345		$	3,720	$	7,910		2.22	%		4.46	%
Loans held-for-sale		8,754			5,453			199			341			—		—		—			—
Loans at fair value		1,805			1,976			90			155			—		—		—			—
Total loans — reported		685,996			692,927			13,441			14,841			3,720		7,910		2.22			4.46
Derivative receivables		78,744			80,481			21			34		NA		NA		NA			NA
Receivables from customers(a)		38,053			32,541			—			—			—		—		—			—
Interest in purchased receivables(b)		177			391			—			—			—		—		—			—
Total credit-related assets		802,970			806,340			13,462			14,875			3,720		7,910		2.22			4.46
Lending-related commitments(c)		985,934			958,709			895			1,005		NA		NA		NA			NA
Assets acquired in loan satisfactions
Real estate owned	NA			NA				1,467			1,610		NA		NA		NA			NA
Other	NA			NA				57			72		NA		NA		NA			NA
Total assets acquired in loan satisfactions	NA			NA				1,524			1,682		NA		NA		NA			NA
Total credit portfolio	$	1,788,904		$	1,765,049		$	15,881		$	17,562		$	3,720	$	7,910		2.22	%		4.46	%
Net credit derivative hedges notional(d)	$	(24,731	)	$	(23,108	)	$	(47	)	$	(55	)	NA		NA		NA			NA
Liquid securities and other cash collateral held against derivatives		(16,185	)		(16,486	)	NA			NA			NA		NA		NA			NA

(a)	Represents primarily margin loans to prime and retail brokerage customers, which are included in accrued interest and accounts receivable on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(b)	Represents an ownership interest in cash flows of a pool of receivables transferred by a third-party seller into a bankruptcy-remote entity, generally a trust.
(c)	The amounts in nonperforming represent unfunded commitments that are risk rated as nonaccrual.
(d)	Represents the net notional amount of protection purchased and sold of single-name and portfolio credit derivatives used to manage both performing and non-performing credit exposures; these derivatives do not qualify for hedge accounting under U.S. GAAP. For additional information, see Credit derivatives on page 67 and Note 5 on pages 107–113 of this Form 10-Q.
(e)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, nonperforming assets excluded: (1) mortgage loans insured by U.S. government agencies of $9.8 billion and $10.5 billion, respectively, that are accruing at the guaranteed reimbursement rate; (2) real estate owned insured by U.S. government agencies of $2.3 billion and $1.9 billion, respectively; and (3) student loans that are 90 days or more past due and still accruing, which are insured by U.S. government agencies under the FFELP, of $615 million and $625 million, respectively. These amounts were excluded as reimbursement of insured amounts is proceeding normally. In addition, the Firm’s policy is generally to exempt credit card loans from being placed on nonaccrual status as permitted by regulatory guidance issued by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (“FFIEC”). Credit card loans are

59

	charged off by the end of the month in which the account becomes 180 days past due or within 60 days from receiving notification about a specified event (e.g., bankruptcy of the borrower), whichever is earlier.
(f)	Excludes PCI loans acquired as part of the Washington Mutual transaction, which are accounted for on a pool basis. Since each pool is accounted for as a single asset with a single composite interest rate and an aggregate expectation of cash flows, the past due status of the pools, or that of individual loans within the pools, is not meaningful. Because the Firm is recognizing interest income on each pool of loans, they are all considered to be performing.
(g)	For the three months ended March 31, 2011, and 2010, net charge-off rates were calculated using average retained loans of $680.0 billion and $718.5 billion, respectively. These average retained loans include average PCI loans of $71.6 billion and $80.3 billion, respectively. Excluding the impact of PCI loans, the Firm’s total charge-off rate would have been 2.48% and 5.03% respectively.

WHOLESALE CREDIT PORTFOLIO

As of March 31, 2011, wholesale exposure (IB, CB, TSS and AM) increased by $21.4 billion from December 31, 2010. The overall increase was primarily driven by increases of $9.5 billion in lending-related commitments, $8.4 billion in loans and $5.5 billion of receivables from customers. The growth in wholesale credit exposure represented increased client activity across all businesses and all regions. Effective January 1, 2011, the commercial card credit portfolio (of approximately $5.3 billion of lending-related commitments and $1.2 billion of loans) that was previously in TSS was transferred to CS.

Wholesale

	Credit
	exposure						Nonperforming(e)
	March 31,			December 31,			March 31,			December 31,
(in millions)	2011			2010			2011			2010
Loans retained	$	229,648		$	222,510		$	4,578		$	5,510
Loans held-for-sale		4,554			3,147			199			341
Loans at fair value		1,805			1,976			90			155
Loans — reported		236,007			227,633			4,867			6,006
Derivative receivables		78,744			80,481			21			34
Receivables from customers(a)		38,053			32,541			—			—
Interests in purchased receivables(b)		177			391			—			—
Total wholesale credit-related assets		352,981			341,046			4,888			6,040
Lending-related commitments(c)		355,561			346,079			895			1,005
Total wholesale credit exposure	$	708,542		$	687,125		$	5,783		$	7,045
Net credit derivative hedges notional(d)	$	(24,731	)	$	(23,108	)	$	(47	)	$	(55	)
Liquid securities and other cash collateral held against derivatives		(16,185	)		(16,486	)	NA			NA

(a)	Represents primarily margin loans to prime and retail brokerage customers, which are included in accrued interest and accounts receivable on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(b)	Represents an ownership interest in cash flows of a pool of receivables transferred by a third-party seller into a bankruptcy-remote entity, generally a trust.
(c)	The amounts in nonperforming represent unfunded commitments that are risk rated as nonaccrual.
(d)	Represents the net notional amount of protection purchased and sold of single-name and portfolio credit derivatives used to manage both performing and nonperforming credit exposures; these derivatives do not qualify for hedge accounting under U.S. GAAP. For additional information, see Credit derivatives on page 67, and Note 5 on pages 107—113 of this Form 10-Q.
(e)	Excludes assets acquired in loan satisfactions.

60

The following table presents summaries of the maturity and ratings profiles of the wholesale portfolio as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010. The ratings scale is based on the Firm’s internal risk ratings, which generally correspond to the ratings as defined by S&P and Moody’s. Also included in this table is the notional value of net credit derivative hedges; the counterparties to these hedges are predominantly investment grade banks and finance companies.

Wholesale credit exposure — maturity and ratings profile

	Maturity profile(e)												Ratings profile
													Investment-			Noninvestment-
													grade (“IG”)			grade
March 31, 2011	Due in 1 year			Due after 1 year			Due after 5						AAA/Aaa to			BB+/Ba1					Total %
(in millions, except ratios)	or less			through 5 years			years			Total			BBB-/Baa3			& below		Total			of IG
Loans	$	89,044		$	82,128		$	58,476		$	229,648		$	153,159		$	76,489	$	229,648			67	%
Derivative receivables(a)											78,744								78,744
Less: Liquid securities and other cash collateral held against derivatives											(16,185	)							(16,185	)
Total derivative receivables, net of all collateral		11,894			22,351			28,314			62,559			48,871			13,688		62,559			78
Lending-related commitments		133,153			212,399			10,009			355,561			285,010			70,551		355,561			80
Subtotal		234,091			316,878			96,799			647,768			487,040			160,728		647,768			75
Loans held-for-sale and loans at fair value(b)(c)											6,359								6,359
Receivables from customers(c)											38,053								38,053
Interests in purchased receivables(c)											177								177
Total exposure — net of liquid securities and other cash collateral held against derivatives										$	692,357							$	692,357
Net credit derivative hedges notional(d)	$	(1,621	)	$	(14,284	)	$	(8,826	)	$	(24,731	)	$	(24,811	)	$	80	$	(24,731	)		100	%

	Maturity profile(e)												Ratings profile
													Investment-			Noninvestment-
													grade (“IG”)			grade
December 31, 2010	Due in 1 year			Due after 1 year			Due after 5						AAA/Aaa to			BB+/Ba1					Total %
(in millions, except ratios)	or less			through 5 years			years			Total			BBB-/Baa3			& below		Total			of IG
Loans	$	78,017		$	85,987		$	58,506		$	222,510		$	146,047		$	76,463	$	222,510			66	%
Derivative receivables(a)											80,481								80,481
Less: Liquid securities and other cash collateral held against derivatives											(16,486	)							(16,486	)
Total derivative receivables, net of all collateral		11,499			24,415			28,081			63,995			47,557			16,438		63,995			74
Lending-related commitments		126,389			209,299			10,391			346,079			276,298			69,781		346,079			80
Subtotal		215,905			319,701			96,978			632,584			469,902			162,682		632,584			74
Loans held-for-sale and loans at fair value(b)(c)											5,123								5,123
Receivables from customers(c)											32,541								32,541
Interests in purchased receivables(c)											391								391
Total exposure — net of liquid securities and other cash collateral held against derivatives										$	670,639							$	670,639
Net credit derivative hedges notional(d)	$	(1,228	)	$	(16,415	)	$	(5,465	)	$	(23,108	)	$	(23,159	)	$	51	$	(23,108	)		100	%

(a)		Represents the fair value of derivative receivables as reported on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(b)	��	Loans held-for-sale and loans at fair value relate primarily to syndicated loans and loans transferred from the retained portfolio.
(c)		From a credit risk perspective maturity and ratings profiles are not meaningful.
(d)		Represents the net notional amounts of protection purchased and sold of single-name and portfolio credit derivatives used to manage the credit exposures; these derivatives do not qualify for hedge accounting under U.S. GAAP.
(e)		The maturity profile of loans and lending-related commitments is based on the remaining contractual maturity. The maturity profile of derivative receivables is based on the maturity profile of average exposure. For further discussion of average exposure, see Derivative receivables marked to market on page 66 of this Form 10-Q.

61

Customer receivables of $38.1 billion and $32.5 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively, representing primarily margin loans to prime and retail brokerage clients, are included in the table. These margin loans are collateralized through a pledge of assets maintained in clients’ brokerage accounts and are subject to daily minimum collateral requirements. In the event that the collateral value decreases, a maintenance margin call is made to the client to provide additional collateral into the account. If additional collateral is not provided by the client, the client’s positions may be liquidated by the Firm to meet the minimum collateral requirements.

Wholesale credit exposure — selected industry exposures

The Firm focuses on the management and diversification of its industry exposures, with particular attention paid to industries with actual or potential credit concerns. Exposures deemed criticized generally represent a ratings profile similar to a rating of “CCC+"/“Caa1” and lower, as defined by S&P and Moody’s. The total criticized component of the portfolio, excluding loans held-for-sale and loans at fair value, decreased to $20.8 billion at March 31, 2011, from $22.4 billion from December 31, 2010. The decrease was primarily related to loan sales and net repayments.

Below are summaries of the top 25 industry exposures as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010.

Wholesale credit exposure — selected industry exposures

																			Liquid
																			securities
																			and other
																			cash
											30 days or								collateral
As of or for the year ended					Noninvestment-grade						more past due		Year-to-date			Credit			held against
March 31, 2011	Credit		Investment-				Criticized		Criticized		and accruing		net charge-offs/			derivative			derivative
(in millions)	exposure(c)		grade		Noncriticized		performing		nonperforming		loans		(recoveries)			hedges(d)			receivables
Top 25 industries(a)
Banks and finance companies	$	65,982	$	55,393	$	9,979	$	533	$	77	$	6	$	(7	)	$	(3,097	)	$	(9,173	)
Real estate		62,927		34,216		20,476		5,871		2,364		294		160			(42	)		(52	)
Healthcare		39,280		32,633		6,372		237		38		16		—			(730	)		(105	)
State and municipal governments		34,315		33,324		781		186		24		6		—			(190	)		(30	)
Asset managers		30,393		25,898		4,040		455		—		8		—			—			(3,057	)
Oil and gas		28,789		20,514		8,187		86		2		40		—			(114	)		(90	)
Utilities		27,628		22,635		4,210		441		342		—		4			(415	)		(293	)
Consumer products		26,468		16,687		9,289		475		17		3		(1	)		(870	)		(2	)
Retail and consumer services		20,183		12,010		7,649		367		157		8		1			(604	)		(3	)
Technology		13,816		9,826		3,578		370		42		3		1			(164	)		(2	)
Machinery and equipment manufacturing		13,804		7,904		5,616		282		2		7		(1	)		(73	)		—
Building materials/ construction		13,176		6,716		5,357		1,084		19		4		(5	)		(338	)		—
Media		13,165		6,251		5,668		716		530		56		6			(205	)		—
Metals/mining		12,643		6,038		6,168		419		18		7		(4	)		(472	)		—
Telecom services		12,613		9,486		2,299		818		10		—		(1	)		(798	)		(15	)
Central government		12,497		12,014		469		14		—		—		—			(8,071	)		(173	)
Chemicals and plastics		11,674		7,650		3,657		360		7		1		—			(130	)		(2	)
Insurance		11,634		8,563		2,775		284		12		—		—			(1,012	)		(706	)
Holding companies		11,035		8,804		2,185		46		—		104		(1	)		—			(358	)
Securities firms and exchanges		10,908		9,473		1,381		54		—		80		—			(37	)		(1,980	)
Business services		10,885		6,068		4,653		133		31		23		8			(5	)		—
Transportation		9,971		7,001		2,750		178		42		2		1			(129	)		—
Automotive		9,612		4,296		5,071		242		3		—		—			(911	)		—
Agriculture/paper manufacturing		7,140		4,510		2,405		225		—		7		—			(62	)		(7	)
Aerospace		6,086		5,153		832		101		—		—		—			(378	)		—
All other(b)		147,329		129,028		15,175		2,264		862		667		4			(5,884	)		(137	)
Subtotal		663,953		502,091		141,022		16,241		4,599		1,342		165			(24,731	)		(16,185	)
Loans held-for-sale and loans at fair value		6,359
Receivables from customers		38,053
Interest in purchased receivables		177
Total	$	708,542	$	502,091	$	141,022	$	16,241	$	4,599	$	1,342	$	165		$	(24,731	)	$	(16,185	)

62

																				Liquid
																				securities
																				and other
												30 days or				��				cash collateral
As of or for the year ended					Noninvestment-grade							more past due		Year-to-date			Credit			held against
December 31, 2010	Credit		Investment-				Criticized		Criticized			and accruing		net charge-offs/			derivative			derivative
(in millions)	exposure(c)		grade		Noncriticized		performing		nonperforming			loans		(recoveries)			hedges(d)			receivables
Top 25 industries(a)
Banks and finance companies	$	65,867	$	54,839	$	10,428	$	467	$	133		$	26	$	69		$	(3,456	)	$	(9,216	)
Real estate		64,351		34,440		20,569		6,404		2,938			399		862			(76	)		(57	)
Healthcare		41,093		33,752		7,019		291		31			85		4			(768	)		(161	)
State and municipal governments		35,808		34,641		912		231		24			34		3			(186	)		(233	)
Asset managers		29,364		25,533		3,401		427		3			7		—			—			(2,948	)
Oil and gas		26,459		18,465		7,850		143		1			24		—			(87	)		(50	)
Utilities		25,911		20,951		4,101		498		361			3		49			(355	)		(230	)
Consumer products		27,508		16,747		10,379		371		11			217		1			(752	)		(2	)
Retail and consumer services		20,882		12,021		8,316		338		207			8		23			(623	)		(3	)
Technology		14,348		9,355		4,534		399		60			47		50			(158	)		—
Machinery and equipment manufacturing		13,311		7,690		5,372		244		5			8		2			(74	)		(2	)
Building materials/ construction		12,808		6,557		5,065		1,129		57			9		6			(308	)		—
Media		10,967		5,808		3,945		672		542			2		92			(212	)		(3	)
Metals/mining		11,426		5,260		5,748		362		56			7		35			(296	)		—
Telecom services		10,709		7,582		2,295		821		11			3		(8	)		(820	)		—
Central government		11,173		10,677		496		—		—			—		—			(6,897	)		(42	)
Chemicals/plastics		12,312		8,375		3,656		274		7			—		2			(70	)		—
Insurance		10,918		7,908		2,690		320		—			—		(1	)		(805	)		(567	)
Holding companies		10,504		8,375		2,091		38		—			33		5			—			(362	)
Securities firms and exchanges		9,415		7,678		1,700		37		—			—		5			(38	)		(2,358	)
Business services		11,247		6,351		4,735		115		46			11		15			(5	)		—
Transportation		9,652		6,630		2,739		245		38			—		(16	)		(132	)		—
Automotive		9,011		3,915		4,822		269		5	��		—		52			(758	)		—
Agriculture/paper manufacturing		7,368		4,510		2,614		242		2			8		7			(44	)		(2	)
Aerospace		5,732		4,903		732		97		—			—		—			(321	)		—
All other(b)		140,926		122,594		14,924		2,402		1,006			921		470			(5,867	)		(250	)
Subtotal		649,070		485,557		141,133		16,836		5,544			1,852		1,727			(23,108	)		(16,486	)
Loans held-for-sale and loans at fair value		5,123
Receivables from customers		32,541
Interest in purchased receivables		391
Total	$	687,125	$	485,557	$	141,133	$	16,836	$	5,544		$	1,852	$	1,727		$	(23,108	)	$	(16,486	)

(a)	All industry rankings are based on exposure at March 31, 2011. The industry rankings presented in the table as of December 31, 2010 are based on the industry rankings of the corresponding exposures at March 31, 2011, not actual rankings of such exposures at December 31, 2010.
(b)	For more information on exposures to SPEs included in all other, see Note 15 on pages 141–149 of this Form 10-Q.
(c)	Credit exposure is net of risk participations and excludes the benefit of credit derivative hedges and collateral held against derivative receivables or loans.
(d)	Represents the net notional amounts of protection purchased and sold of single-name and portfolio credit derivatives used to manage the credit exposures; these derivatives do not qualify for hedge accounting under U.S. GAAP.

63

The following table presents the geographic distribution of wholesale credit, nonperforming assets and past due loans as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010. The geographic distribution of the wholesale portfolio is determined based predominantly on the domicile of the borrower.

	Credit exposure								Nonperforming
																	Assets		30 days or
			Lending-														acquired		more past
March 31, 2011			related		Derivative		Total credit		Nonaccrual				Lending-related		Total non-		in loan		due and
(in millions)	Loans		commitments		receivables		exposure		loans(a)		Derivatives		commitments		performing		satisfactions		accruing loans
Europe/Middle East and Africa	$	30,360	$	60,560	$	33,201	$	124,121	$	57	$	—	$	20	$	77	$	—	$	22
Asia and Pacific		23,144		15,479		10,993		49,616		1		15		—		16		—		3
Latin America and the Caribbean		17,745		14,185		5,247		37,177		515		—		17		532		1		129
Other		1,213		6,260		2,124		9,597		9		—		5		14		—		1
Total non-U.S.		72,462		96,484		51,565		220,511		582		15		42		639		1		155
Total U.S.		157,186		259,077		27,179		443,442		3,996		6		853		4,855		260		1,187
Loans held-for-sale and loans at fair value		6,359		—		—		6,359		289	NA			—		289	NA			—
Receivables from customers		—		—		—		38,053	NA		NA		NA		NA		NA			—
Interests in purchased receivables		—		—		—		177	NA		NA		NA		NA		NA			—
Total	$	236,007	$	355,561	$	78,744	$	708,542	$	4,867	$	21	$	895	$	5,783	$	261	$	1,342

	Credit exposure								Nonperforming
																	Assets		30 days or
			Lending-														acquired		more past
December 31, 2010			related		Derivative		Total credit		Nonaccrual				Lending-related		Total non-		in loan		due and
(in millions)	Loans		commitments		receivables		exposure		loans(a)		Derivatives		commitments		performing		satisfactions		accruing loans
Europe/Middle East and Africa	$	27,934	$	58,418	$	35,196	$	121,548	$	153	$	1	$	23	$	177	$	—	$	127
Asia and Pacific		20,552		15,002		10,991		46,545		579		21		—		600		—		74
Latin America and the Caribbean		16,480		12,170		5,634		34,284		649		—		13		662		1		131
Other		1,185		6,149		2,039		9,373		6		—		5		11		—		—
Total non-U.S.		66,151		91,739		53,860		211,750		1,387		22		41		1,450		1		332
Total U.S.		156,359		254,340		26,621		437,320		4,123		12		964		5,099		320		1,520
Loans held-for-sale and loans at fair value		5,123		—		—		5,123		496	NA			—		496	NA			—
Receivables from customers		—		—		—		32,541	NA		NA		NA		NA		NA			—
Interests in purchased receivables		—		—		—		391	NA		NA		NA		NA		NA			—
Total	$	227,633	$	346,079	$	80,481	$	687,125	$	6,006	$	34	$	1,005	$	7,045	$	321	$	1,852

(a) The Firm held allowance for loan losses of $1.0 billion and $1.6 billion related to nonaccrual retained loans resulting in allowance coverage ratios of 22% and 29% at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively. Wholesale nonaccrual loans represent 2.06% and 2.64% of total wholesale loans at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

64

Loans

In the normal course of business, the Firm provides loans to a variety of wholesale customers, from large corporate and institutional clients to high-net-worth individuals. For further discussion on loans, including information on credit quality indicators, see Note 13 on pages 122—138 of this Form 10-Q.

Retained wholesale loans were $229.6 billion at March 31, 2011, compared with $222.5 billion at December 31, 2010. The $7.1 billion increase was primarily related to increased client activity.

The Firm actively manages wholesale credit exposure through sales of loans and lending-related commitments. During the first three months of 2011, the Firm sold $1.5 billion of loans and commitments, recognizing revenue gains of $5 million. During the first three months of 2010, the Firm sold $2.6 billion of loans and commitments, recognizing net revenue gains of $19 million. These results included gains or losses on sales of nonaccrual loans, if any, as discussed below. These sale activities are not related to the Firm’s securitization activities. For further discussion of securitization activity, see Liquidity Risk Management and Note 15 on pages 53–58 and 141–149 respectively, of this Form 10-Q.

The following table presents the change in the nonaccrual loan portfolio for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010.

Wholesale nonaccrual loan activity
Three months ended March 31, (in millions)	2011			2010
Beginning balance	$	6,006		$	6,904
Additions		700			2,717
Reductions:
Paydowns and other		581			1,595
Gross charge-offs		243			909
Returned to performing		152			59
Sales		863			832
Total reductions		1,839			3,395
Net additions/(reductions)		(1,139	)		(678	)
Ending balance	$	4,867		$	6,226

Nonaccrual wholesale loans decreased by $1.1 billion, from December 31, 2010, primarily reflecting loan sales and repayments.

The following table presents net charge-offs, which are defined as gross charge-offs less recoveries, for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010. The amounts in the table below do not include revenue gains from sales of nonaccrual loans.

Wholesale net charge-offs
Three months ended March 31, (in millions, except ratios)	2011			2010
Loans — reported
Average loans retained	$	226,544		$	211,599
Net charge-offs		165			959
Average annual net charge-off ratio		0.30	%		1.84	%

65

Derivative contracts

In the normal course of business, the Firm uses derivative instruments predominantly for market-making activity. Derivatives enable customers and the Firm to manage exposures to fluctuations in interest rates, currencies and other markets. The Firm also uses derivative instruments to manage its credit exposure. For further discussion of derivative contracts, see Note 6 on page 113 of this Form 10-Q.

The following tables summarize the net derivative receivables MTM for the periods presented.

Derivative receivables MTM	Derivative receivables MTM
(in millions)	March 31, 2011			December 31, 2010
Interest rate	$	31,182		$	32,555
Credit derivatives		8,026			7,725
Foreign exchange		18,333			25,858
Equity		8,358			4,204
Commodity		12,845			10,139
Total, net of cash collateral		78,744			80,481
Liquid securities and other cash collateral held against derivative receivables		(16,185	)		(16,486	)
Total, net of all collateral	$	62,559		$	63,995

Derivative receivables reported on the Consolidated Balance Sheets were $78.7 billion and $80.5 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively. These represent the fair value (e.g. MTM) of the derivative contracts after giving effect to legally enforceable master netting agreements, cash collateral held by the Firm and the credit valuation adjustment (“CVA”). However, in management’s view, the appropriate measure of current credit risk should also reflect additional liquid securities and other cash collateral held by the Firm of $16.2 billion and $16.5 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively, as shown in the table above. Derivative receivables decreased from December 31, 2010, largely due to a reduction in foreign exchange derivative balances, which declined primarily due to the Japanese Yen depreciation relative to the U.S. dollar. Interest rate contracts also decreased as a result of higher interest rate yields during the quarter. These decreases were partially offset by increases in derivative receivables related to equity derivatives as a result of increased activity in the EMEA and Latin American markets, and to commodity derivatives primarily as a result of higher oil prices.

The Firm also holds additional collateral delivered by clients at the initiation of transactions, as well as collateral related to contracts that have a non-daily call frequency and collateral that the Firm has agreed to return but has not yet settled as of the reporting date. Though this collateral does not reduce the balances noted in the table above, it is available as security against potential exposure that could arise should the MTM of the client’s derivative transactions move in the Firm’s favor. As of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, the Firm held $20.5 billion and $18.0 billion, respectively, of this additional collateral. The derivative receivables MTM, net of all collateral, also do not include other credit enhancements, such as letters of credit.

The following table summarizes the ratings profile of the Firm’s derivative receivables MTM, net of other liquid securities collateral, for the dates indicated.

Ratings profile of derivative receivables MTM

	March 31, 2011					December 31, 2010
Rating equivalent	Exposure net of		% of exposure net			Exposure net of		% of exposure net
(in millions, except ratios)	all collateral		of all collateral			all collateral		of all collateral
AAA/Aaa to AA-/Aa3	$	25,062		40	%	$	23,342		36	%
A+/A1 to A-/A3		15,313		24			15,812		25
BBB+/Baa1 to BBB-/Baa3		8,496		14			8,403		13
BB+/Ba1 to B-/B3		11,161		18			13,716		22
CCC+/Caa1 and below		2,527		4			2,722		4
Total	$	62,559		100	%	$	63,995		100	%

As noted above, the Firm uses collateral agreements to mitigate counterparty credit risk. The percentage of the Firm’s derivatives transactions subject to collateral agreements - excluding foreign exchange spot trades, which are not typically covered by collateral agreements due to their short maturity - remained unchanged at 88% as of March 31, 2011, when compared to December 31, 2010. The Firm posted $52.8 billion and $58.3 billion of collateral at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

66

Credit derivatives

For a detailed discussion of credit derivatives, including types of derivatives, see Note 5, Credit derivatives, on pages 107—113 of this Form 10-Q, and Credit derivatives on pages 126—127 and Note 6, Credit derivatives, on pages 197—199 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

The following table presents the Firm’s notional amounts of credit derivatives protection purchased and sold as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, distinguishing between dealer/client activity and credit portfolio activity.

	March 31, 2011										December 31, 2010
	Dealer/client				Credit portfolio						Dealer/client				Credit portfolio
	Protection		Protection		Protection		Protection				Protection		Protection		Protection		Protection
(in millions)	purchased(b)		sold		purchased		sold		Total		purchased(b)		sold		purchased		sold		Total
Credit default swaps	$	2,818,450	$	2,840,813	$	24,913	$	182	$	5,684,358	$	2,661,657	$	2,658,825	$	23,523	$	415	$	5,344,420
Other credit derivatives(a)		56,379		104,406		—		—		160,785		34,250		93,776		—		—		128,026
Total	$	2,874,829	$	2,945,219	$	24,913	$	182	$	5,845,143	$	2,695,907	$	2,752,601	$	23,523	$	415	$	5,472,446

(a)	Primarily consists of total return swaps and credit default swap options.
(b)	Included $2,835 billion and $2,662 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively, of notional exposure where the Firm has sold protection on the identical underlying reference instruments.

Dealer/client business

Within the dealer/client business, the Firm actively manages credit derivatives by buying and selling credit protection, predominantly on corporate debt obligations, according to client demand. For further information, see Note 5 on pages 107—113 of this Form 10-Q.

At March 31, 2011, the total notional amount of protection purchased and sold increased by $371.5 billion from December 31, 2010, primarily due to increased activity, particularly in the EMEA region.

Credit portfolio activities

Use of single-name and portfolio credit derivatives	Notional amount of protection purchased and sold
(in millions)	March 31, 2011		December 31, 2010
Credit derivatives used to manage
Loans and lending-related commitments	$	6,668	$	6,698
Derivative receivables		18,245		16,825
Total protection purchased		24,913		23,523
Total protection sold		182		415
Credit derivatives hedges notional, net	$	24,731	$	23,108

The credit derivatives used by JPMorgan Chase for credit portfolio management activities do not qualify for hedge accounting under U.S. GAAP; these derivatives are reported at fair value, with gains and losses recognized in principal transactions revenue. In contrast, the loans and lending-related commitments being risk-managed are accounted for on an accrual basis. This asymmetry in accounting treatment, between loans and lending-related commitments and the credit derivatives used in credit portfolio management activities, causes earnings volatility that is not representative, in the Firm’s view, of the true changes in value of the Firm’s overall credit exposure. The MTM value related to the Firm’s credit derivatives used for managing credit exposure, as well as the MTM value related to the CVA (which reflects the credit quality of derivatives counterparty exposure) are included in the gains and losses realized on credit derivatives disclosed in the table below. These results can vary from period to period due to market conditions that affect specific positions in the portfolio.

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011			2010
Hedges of lending-related commitments	$	(44	)	$	(120	)
CVA and hedges of CVA		(39	)		(1	)
Net gains/(losses)	$	(83	)	$	(121	)

67

Lending-related commitments

JPMorgan Chase uses lending-related financial instruments, such as commitments and guarantees, to meet the financing needs of its customers. The contractual amount of these financial instruments represents the maximum possible credit risk should the counterparties draw down on these commitments or the Firm fulfills its obligation under these guarantees, and should the counterparties subsequently fail to perform according to the terms of these contracts.

Wholesale lending-related commitments were $355.6 billion at March 31, 2011, compared with $346.1 billion at December 31, 2010, reflecting increased client activity.

In the Firm’s view, the total contractual amount of these wholesale lending-related commitments 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 wholesale lending-related commitments, which is used as the basis for allocating credit risk capital to these commitments, the Firm has established a “loan-equivalent” amount for each commitment; this amount represents the portion of the unused commitment or other contingent exposure that is expected, based on average portfolio historical experience, to become drawn upon in an event of a default by an obligor. The loan-equivalent amounts of the Firm’s lending-related commitments were $182.9 billion and $178.9 billion as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

Country exposure

The Firm’s wholesale portfolio includes country risk exposures to both developed and emerging markets. The Firm seeks to diversify its country exposures, including its credit-related lending, trading and investment activities, whether cross-border or locally funded.

Country exposure under the Firm’s internal risk management approach is reported based on the country where the assets of the obligor, counterparty or guarantor are located. Exposure amounts, including resale agreements, are adjusted for collateral and for credit enhancements (e.g., guarantees and letters of credit) provided by third parties; outstandings supported by a guarantor located outside the country or backed by collateral held outside the country are assigned to the country of the enhancement provider. In addition, the effect of credit derivative hedges and other short credit or equity trading positions are taken into consideration. Total exposure measures include activity with both government and private-sector entities in a country.

Several European countries, including Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Ireland, have been subject to credit deterioration due to weaknesses in their economic and fiscal situations. The Firm is closely monitoring its exposures to these five countries. Aggregate net exposures to these five countries as measured under the Firm’s internal approach were less than $20.0 billion at March 31, 2011, with no one country representing a majority of the exposure. Sovereign exposure in all five countries represented less than half the aggregate net exposure, with the majority of the exposure in credit assets. The Firm currently believes its exposure to these five countries is modest relative to the Firm’s overall risk exposures and is manageable given the size and types of exposures to each of the countries and the diversification of the aggregate exposure. The Firm continues to conduct business and support client activity in these countries and, therefore, the Firm’s aggregate net exposures may vary over time. In addition, the net exposures may be affected by changes in market conditions, including the effects of interest rates and credit spreads on market valuations.

68

As part of its ongoing country risk management process, the Firm monitors exposure to emerging market countries, and utilizes country stress tests to measure and manage the risk of extreme loss associated with a sovereign crisis in one or more countries. There is no common definition of emerging markets, but the Firm generally includes in its definition those countries whose sovereign debt ratings are equivalent to “A+” or lower. The table below presents the Firm’s exposure to its top 10 emerging markets countries based on its internal measurement approach. The selection of countries is based solely on the Firm’s largest total exposures by country and does not represent its view of any actual or potentially adverse credit conditions.

Top 10 emerging markets country exposure

At March 31, 2011	Cross-border										Total
(in billions)	Lending(a)		Trading(b)		Other(c)		Total		Local(d)		exposure
India	$	6.1	$	3.0	$	1.5	$	10.6	$	1.2	$	11.8
South Korea		3.5		1.4		1.5		6.4		4.0		10.4
Brazil		3.6		0.9		1.2		5.7		4.0		9.7
China		4.9		0.6		1.5		7.0		1.2		8.2
Mexico		1.8		3.6		0.4		5.8		—		5.8
Hong Kong		2.1		1.9		1.2		5.2		—		5.2
Malaysia		0.4		3.6		0.4		4.4		0.4		4.8
Taiwan		0.7		0.3		0.3		1.3		3.0		4.3
Chile		1.0		2.2		0.5		3.7		—		3.7
Thailand		0.2		1.9		0.4		2.5		0.7		3.2

At December 31, 2010	Cross-border										Total
(in billions)	Lending(a)		Trading(b)		Other(c)		Total		Local(d)		exposure
Brazil	$	3.0	$	1.8	$	1.1	$	5.9	$	3.9	$	9.8
South Korea		3.0		1.4		1.5		5.9		3.1		9.0
India		4.2		2.1		1.4		7.7		1.1		8.8
China		3.6		1.1		1.0		5.7		1.2		6.9
Hong Kong		2.5		1.5		1.2		5.2		—		5.2
Mexico		2.1		2.3		0.5		4.9		—		4.9
Malaysia		0.6		2.0		0.3		2.9		0.4		3.3
Taiwan		0.3		0.6		0.4		1.3		1.9		3.2
Thailand		0.3		1.1		0.4		1.8		0.9		2.7
Russia		1.2		1.0		0.3		2.5		—		2.5

(a)	Lending includes loans and accrued interest receivable, interest-earning deposits with banks, acceptances, other monetary assets, issued letters of credit net of participations, and undrawn commitments to extend credit.
(b)	Trading includes: (1) issuer exposure on cross-border debt and equity instruments, held both in trading and investment accounts and adjusted for the impact of issuer hedges, including credit derivatives; and (2) counterparty exposure on derivative and foreign exchange contracts as well as securities financing trades (resale agreements and securities borrowed).
(c)	Other represents mainly local exposure funded cross-border, including capital investments in local entities.
(d)	Local exposure is defined as exposure to a country denominated in local currency and booked locally. Any exposure not meeting these criteria is defined as cross-border exposure.

69

CONSUMER CREDIT PORTFOLIO

JPMorgan Chase’s consumer portfolio consists primarily of residential mortgages, home equity loans, credit cards, auto loans, student loans and business banking loans.The Firm’s primary focus is on serving the prime consumer credit market. For further information on the consumer loans, see Note 13 on pages 122–138 of this Form 10-Q.

A substantial portion of the consumer loans acquired in the Washington Mutual transaction were identified as purchased credit-impaired based on an analysis of high-risk characteristics, including product type, loan-to-value (“LTV”) ratios, FICO scores and delinquency status. These PCI loans are accounted for on a pool basis, and the pools are considered to be performing. For further information on PCI loans see Note 13 on pages 122–138 of this Form 10Q and Note 14 on pages 220–238 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

The credit performance of the consumer portfolio across the entire product spectrum has improved, but high unemployment and weak overall economic conditions continued to result in elevated charge-offs, while weak housing prices continued to negatively affect the severity of loss recognized on residential real estate loans that default. Delinquencies and nonaccrual loans remain elevated but have improved. Early-stage residential real estate delinquencies (30—89 days delinquent) continued to show improvement in the first quarter of 2011, while late-stage residential real estate delinquencies (150+ days delinquent) stabilized but remained elevated. The elevated level of these credit quality metrics is due, in part, to loss-mitigation activities currently being undertaken and elongated foreclosure processing timelines. Losses related to these loans continued to be recognized in accordance with the Firm’s standard charge-off practices, but some delinquent loans that would otherwise have been foreclosed upon remain in the mortgage and home equity loan portfolios.

Actions taken by the Firm since 2007 to tighten underwriting and loan qualification standards, and to eliminate certain products and loan origination channels, have resulted in the reduction of credit risk and improved credit performance for recent loan vintages.

70

The following table presents managed consumer credit–related information (including RFS, CS and residential real estate loans reported in the Corporate/Private Equity segment) for the dates indicated. For further information about the Firm’s nonaccrual and charge-off accounting policies, see Note 14 on pages 220–238 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Consumer

									Three months ended March 31,
	Credit				Nonaccrual								Average annual
	exposure				loans(h)(i)				Net charge-offs				net charge-off rates(j)
	March 31,		Dec. 31,		March 31,		Dec. 31,
(in millions, except ratios)	2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010		2011			2010
Consumer, excluding credit card Loans, excluding PCI loans and loans held-for-sale
Home equity — senior lien(a)	$	24,071	$	24,376	$	470	$	479	$	65	$	69		1.08	%		1.04	%
Home equity — junior lien(b)		61,182		64,009		793		784		655		1,057		4.26			5.90
Prime mortgage, including option ARMs		74,682		74,539		4,166		4,320		171		485		0.93			2.55
Subprime mortgage		10,841		11,287		2,106		2,210		186		457		6.80			13.43
Auto(c)		47,411		48,367		120		141		47		102		0.40			0.88
Business banking		16,957		16,812		810		832		119		191		2.86			4.58
Student and other		15,089		15,311		107		67		86		78		2.29			1.87
Total loans, excluding PCI loans and loans held-for-sale		250,233		254,701		8,572		8,833		1,329		2,439		2.14			3.65
Loans — PCI(d)
Home equity		23,973		24,459	NA		NA		NA		NA		NA			NA
Prime mortgage		16,725		17,322	NA		NA		NA		NA		NA			NA
Subprime mortgage		5,276		5,398	NA		NA		NA		NA		NA			NA
Option ARMs		24,791		25,584	NA		NA		NA		NA		NA			NA
Total loans — PCI		70,765		72,763	NA		NA		NA		NA		NA			NA
Total loans — retained		320,998		327,464		8,572		8,833		1,329		2,439		1.66			2.82
Loans held-for-sale(e)		188		154		—		—		—		—		—			—
Total consumer, excluding credit card loans		321,186		327,618		8,572		8,833		1,329		2,439		1.66			2.82
Lending-related commitments
Home equity — senior lien(a)(f)		17,406		17,662
Home equity — junior lien(b)(f)		30,146		30,948
Prime mortgage		745		1,266
Subprime mortgage		—		—
Auto		5,947		5,246
Business banking		9,808		9,702
Student and other		508		579
Total lending-related commitments		64,560		65,403
Total consumer exposure, excluding credit card		385,746		393,021
Credit Card
Loans retained(g)		124,791		135,524		2		2		2,226		4,512		6.97			11.75
Loans held-for-sale		4,012		2,152		—		—		—		—		—			—
Total credit card loans		128,803		137,676		2		2		2,226		4,512		6.97			11.75
Lending-related commitments(f)		565,813		547,227
Total credit card exposure		694,616		684,903
Total consumer credit portfolio	$	1,080,362	$	1,077,924	$	8,574	$	8,835	$	3,555	$	6,951		3.18	%		5.56	%
Memo: Total consumer credit portfolio, excluding PCI	$	1,009,597	$	1,005,161	$	8,574	$	8,835	$	3,555	$	6,951		3.77			6.61

(a)	Represents loans where JPMorgan Chase holds the first security interest on the property.
(b)	Represents loans where JPMorgan Chase holds a security interest that is subordinate in rank to other liens.
(c)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, excluded operating lease—related assets of $3.9 billion and $3.7 billion, respectively.
(d)	Charge-offs are not recorded on PCI loans until actual losses exceed estimated losses that were recorded as purchase accounting adjustments at the time of acquisition. To date, no charge-offs have been recorded for these loans.
(e)	Represents prime mortgage loans held-for-sale.
(f)	The credit card and home equity lending-related commitments represent the total available lines of credit for these products. The Firm has not experienced, and does not anticipate, that all available lines of credit would be used at the same time. For credit card commitments and home equity commitments (if certain conditions are met), the Firm can reduce or cancel these lines of credit by providing the borrower prior notice or, in some cases, without notice as permitted by law.
(g)	Includes billed finance charges and fees net of an allowance for uncollectible amounts.
(h)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, nonaccrual loans excluded: (1) mortgage loans insured by U.S. government agencies of $9.8 billion and $10.5 billion, respectively, that are accruing at the guaranteed reimbursement rate; and (2) student loans that are 90 days or more past due and still

71

	accruing, which are insured by U.S. government agencies under the FFELP, of $615 million and $625 million, respectively. These amounts were excluded as reimbursement of insured amounts is proceeding normally. In addition, the Firm’s policy is generally to exempt credit card loans from being placed on nonaccrual status as permitted by regulatory guidance. Under guidance issued by the FFIEC, credit card loans are charged off by the end of the month in which the account becomes 180 days past due or within 60 days from receiving notification about a specified event (e.g., bankruptcy of the borrower), whichever is earlier.
(i)	Excludes PCI loans that were acquired as part of the Washington Mutual transaction, which are accounted for on a pool basis. Since each pool is accounted for as a single asset with a single composite interest rate and an aggregate expectation of cash flows, the past-due status of the pools, or that of individual loans within the pools, is not meaningful. Because the Firm is recognizing interest income on each pool of loans, they are all considered to be performing.
(j)	For the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, average consumer loans held-for-sale were $3.1 billion and $2.9 billion, respectively. These amounts were excluded when calculating net charge-off rates.

Consumer, excluding credit card

Portfolio analysis

The following discussion relates to the specific loan and lending-related categories. Purchased credit-impaired loans are excluded from individual loan product discussions and are addressed separately below.

Home equity:Home equity loans at March 31, 2011, were $85.3 billion, compared with $88.4 billion at December 31, 2010. The decrease in this portfolio primarily reflected loan paydowns and charge-offs. Both senior lien and junior lien nonaccrual loans remained relatively flat compared with the prior year. Early-stage delinquencies modestly improved from December 31, 2010, while net charge-offs improved from the prior year. In addition to delinquent accounts, the Firm monitors current junior lien loans where the borrower has a first mortgage loan which is either delinquent or has been modified, as such junior lien loans are considered to be at higher risk of delinquency. The portfolio contained an estimated $4 billion of such junior lien loans. The risk associated with these junior lien loans was considered in establishing the allowance for loan losses at March 31, 2011.

Mortgage:Mortgage loans at March 31, 2011, including prime, subprime and loans held-for-sale, were $85.7 billion, compared with $86.0 billion at December 31, 2010. The decrease was primarily due to charge-offs on delinquent loans, partially offset by prime mortgage originations. Net charge-offs decreased from the prior year but remained elevated.

Prime mortgages, including option adjustable-rate mortgages (“ARMs”) and loans held-for-sale at March 31, 2011, were $74.9 billion, compared with $74.7 billion at December 31, 2010. The increase in loans was due to originations, partially offset by charge-offs on delinquent loans. Both early-stage and late-stage delinquencies showed modest improvement during the first quarter but remained elevated. Nonaccrual loans showed improvement, but also remained elevated as a result of ongoing modification activity and foreclosure processing delays. Net charge-offs declined year over year but remained high.

Option ARM loans, which are included in the prime mortgage portfolio, were $8.2 billion and $8.1 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively, and represented 11% of the prime mortgage portfolio in both periods. The increase in option ARM loans resulted from the repurchase of loans previously securitized as the securitization entities were terminated. Option ARM loans are primarily loans with low LTV ratios and high borrower FICOs. Accordingly, the Firm expects substantially lower losses on this portfolio when compared with the PCI option ARM pool. As of March 31, 2011, approximately 7% of the option ARM borrowers were delinquent, 3% were making interest-only or negatively amortizing payments, and 90% were making amortizing payments. Substantially all borrowers within the portfolio are subject to risk of payment shock due to future payment recast as a limited number of these loans have been modified. The cumulative amount of unpaid interest added to the unpaid principal balance due to negative amortization of option ARMs was not material at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010. The Firm estimates the following balances of option ARM loans will experience a recast that results in a payment increase: $47 million in 2011, $216 million in 2012 and $681 million in 2013. The Firm did not originate option ARMs and new originations of option ARMs were discontinued by Washington Mutual prior to the date of JPMorgan Chase’s acquisition of its banking operations.

Subprime mortgages at March 31, 2011, were $10.8 billion, compared with $11.3 billion at December 31, 2010. The decrease was due to paydowns and charge-offs on delinquent loans. Early-stage delinquencies improved during the first quarter of 2011. However, delinquencies and nonaccrual loans remained at elevated levels. Net charge-offs improved significantly from the prior year.

Auto:Auto loans at March 31, 2011, were $47.4 billion, compared with $48.4 billion at December 31, 2010. Loan balances declined due to the impact of increased competition. Delinquent and nonaccrual loans have decreased. Net charge-offs declined 54% from the prior year as a result of lower delinquencies and a decline in loss severity due to a strong used-car market nationwide. The auto loan portfolio reflected a high concentration of prime quality credits.

72

Business banking:Business banking loans at March 31, 2011, were $17.0 billion, compared with $16.8 billion at December 31, 2010. These loans primarily include loans that are collateralized, and generally include personal loan guarantees, and may also include Small Business Administration guarantees. Delinquent loans and nonaccrual loans have shown some improvement but nonaccrual loans continued to remain elevated. Net charge-offs declined from the prior year.

Student and other:Student and other loans at March 31, 2011, were $15.1 billion, compared with $15.3 billion at December 31, 2010. Other loans primarily include other secured and unsecured consumer loans. Delinquencies and nonaccrual loans remained elevated, while charge-offs increased slightly from the prior year quarter.

Purchased credit-impaired loans:PCI loans at March 31, 2011, were $70.8 billion compared with $72.8 billion at December 31, 2010. This portfolio represents loans acquired in the Washington Mutual transaction that were recorded at fair value at the time of acquisition.

The Firm regularly updates the amount of principal and interest cash flows expected to be collected for these loans. Probable decreases in expected loan principal cash flows would trigger the recognition of impairment through the provision for loan losses. Probable and significant increases in expected cash flows (e.g., decreased principal credit losses, the net benefit of modifications) would first reverse any previously recorded allowance for loan losses, with any remaining increase in the expected cash flows recognized prospectively in interest income over the remaining estimated lives of the underlying loans.

The Firm’s allowance for loan losses for the home equity, prime mortgage, subprime mortgage and option ARM PCI pools was $1.6 billion, $1.8 billion, $98 million and $1.5 billion, respectively, at both March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010.

Approximately 38% of the option ARM PCI loans were delinquent, 4% were making interest-only or negatively amortizing payments, and 58% were making amortizing payments. Approximately 35% of current borrowers are subject to risk of payment shock due to future payment recast; substantially all of the remaining loans have been modified to a fixed rate fully amortizing loan. The cumulative amount of unpaid interest added to the unpaid principal balance of the option ARM PCI pool was $1.3 billion and $1.4 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively. The Firm estimates the following balances of option ARM PCI loans will experience a recast that results in a payment increase: $745 million in 2011, $2.3 billion in 2012 and $379 million in 2013.

The following table provides a summary of lifetime loss estimates included in both the nonaccretable difference and the allowance for loan losses. Principal charge-offs will not be recorded on these pools until the nonaccretable difference has been fully depleted.

	Lifetime loss estimates(a)				LTD liquidation losses(b)
	March 31,		December 31,		March 31,		December 31,
(in billions)	2011		2010		2011		2010
Home equity	$	14.7	$	14.7	$	9.3	$	8.8
Prime mortgage		4.9		4.9		1.7		1.5
Subprime mortgage		3.7		3.7		1.3		1.2
Option ARMs		11.6		11.6		5.3		4.9
Total	$	34.9	$	34.9	$	17.6	$	16.4

(a)

Includes the original nonaccretable difference established in purchase accounting of $30.5 billion for principal losses only plus additional principal losses recognized subsequent to acquisition through the provision and allowance for loan losses. The remaining nonaccretable difference for principal losses only was $12.8 billion and $14.1 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

(b)

Life-to-date (“LTD”) liquidation losses represent realization of loss upon loan resolution.

Geographic composition and current LTVs of residential real estate loans

The consumer credit portfolio is geographically diverse. The greatest concentration of residential real estate loans is in California. Excluding mortgage loans insured by U.S. government agencies and PCI loans, California-based loans retained represented 24% of total residential real estate loans retained at both March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010. Of the total residential real estate loan portfolio retained, excluding mortgage loans insured by U.S. government agencies and PCI loans, $84.4 billion, or 54%, were concentrated in California, New York, Arizona, Florida and Michigan at March 31, 2011, compared with $86.4 billion, or 54%, at December 31, 2010.

The current estimated average LTV ratio for residential real estate loans retained, excluding mortgage loans insured by U.S. government agencies and PCI loans, was 84% at March 31, 2011, compared with 83% at December 31, 2010. Excluding mortgage loans insured by U.S. government agencies and PCI loans, 25% of the retained portfolio had a current estimated LTV ratio greater than 100%, and 11% of the retained portfolio had a current estimated LTV ratio greater than 125% at March 31, 2011, compared with 24% with a current estimated LTV ratio greater than 100%, and 10% with a current estimated LTV ratio greater than 125%, at December 31, 2010. The decline in home prices since 2007 has a

73

significant impact on the collateral value underlying the Firm’s residential real estate loan portfolio. In general, the delinquency rate for loans with high LTV ratios is greater than the delinquency rate for loans in which the borrower has equity in the collateral. While a large portion of the loans with current estimated LTV ratios greater than 100% continue to pay and are current, the continued willingness and ability of these borrowers to pay remains uncertain.

The following table presents the current estimated LTV ratio, as well as the ratio of the carrying value of the underlying loans to the current estimated collateral value, for PCI loans. Because such loans were initially measured at fair value, the ratio of the carrying value to the current estimated collateral value will be lower than the current estimated LTV ratio, which is based on the unpaid principal balance. The estimated collateral values used to calculate these ratios do not represent actual appraised loan-level collateral values; as such, the resulting ratios are necessarily imprecise and should therefore be viewed as estimates.

LTV ratios and ratios of carrying values to current estimated collateral values — PCI loans

						Net		Ratio of net carrying value
March 31, 2011	Unpaid principal		Current estimated			carrying		to current estimated
(in millions, except ratios)	balance(a)		LTV ratio(b)			value(d)		collateral value(d)
Home equity	$	27,397		119	%(c)	$	22,390		97	%
Prime mortgage		18,155		111			14,959		91
Subprime mortgage		7,845		116			5,178		77
Option ARMs		29,559		112			23,297		88
						Net		Ratio of net carrying value
December 31, 2010	Unpaid principal		Current estimated			carrying		to current estimated
(in millions, except ratios)	balance(a)		LTV ratio(b)			value(d)		collateral value(d)
Home equity	$	28,312		117	%(c)	$	22,876		95	%
Prime mortgage		18,928		109			15,556		90
Subprime mortgage		8,042		113			5,300		74
Option ARMs		30,791		111			24,090		87

(a)	Represents the contractual amount of principal owed at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010.
(b)	Represents the aggregate unpaid principal balance of loans divided by the estimated current property value. Current property values are estimated, at a minimum, quarterly, based on home valuation models utilizing nationally recognized home price index valuation estimates incorporating actual data to the extent available and forecasted data where actual data is not available.
(c)	Represents current estimated combined LTV, which considers all available lien positions related to the property. All other products are presented without consideration of subordinate liens on the property.
(d)	Net carrying value includes the effect of fair value adjustments that were applied to the consumer PCI portfolio at the date of acquisition and is also net of the allowance for loan losses, which was $1.6 billion for home equity, $1.8 billion for prime mortgage, $98 million for subprime mortgage and $1.5 billion for option ARMs at both March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010. Prior period amounts have been revised to conform to the current period presentation.

PCI loans in the states of California and Florida represented 53% and 10%, respectively, of total PCI loans at both March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010. The current estimated average LTV ratios were 120% and 144% for California and Florida loans, respectively, at March 31, 2011, compared with 118% and 135%, respectively, at December 31, 2010. Continued pressure on housing prices in California and Florida have contributed negatively to both the current estimated average LTV ratio and the ratio of net carrying value to current estimated collateral value for loans in the PCI portfolio. For the PCI portfolio, 64% had a current estimated LTV ratio greater than 100%, and 33% of the PCI portfolio had a current estimated LTV ratio greater than 125% at March 31, 2011; this compared with 63% of the PCI portfolio with a current estimated LTV ratio greater than 100%, and 31% with a current estimated LTV ratio greater than 125%, at December 31, 2010.

While the current estimated collateral value is greater than the net carrying value of PCI loans, the ultimate performance of this portfolio is highly dependent on borrowers’ behavior and ongoing ability and willingness to continue to make payments on homes with negative equity, as well as on the cost of alternative housing. For further information on the geographic composition and current estimated LTVs of residential real estate – non PCI and PCI loans, see Note 13 on pages 122–138 of this Form 10-Q.

74

Loan modification activities

For additional information about consumer loan modification activities, including consumer loan modifications accounted for as troubled debt restructurings (“TDRs”), see Note 13 on pages 122–138 of this Form 10-Q, and Note 14 on pages 139–140 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Residential real estate loans:For both the Firm’s on-balance sheet loans and loans serviced for others, more than 1,098,000 mortgage modifications have been offered to borrowers and approximately 344,000 have been approved since the beginning of 2009. Of these, approximately 324,000 have achieved permanent modification as of March 31, 2011. Of the remaining 754,000 modifications, 30% are in a trial period or still being reviewed for a modification, while 70% have dropped out of the modification program or otherwise were not eligible for final modification.

The Firm is participating in the U.S. Treasury’s MHA programs and is continuing to expand its other loss-mitigation efforts for financially distressed borrowers who do not qualify for the U.S. Treasury’s programs. The MHA programs include the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) and the Second Lien Modification Program (“2MP”). The Firm’s other loss-mitigation programs for troubled borrowers who do not qualify for HAMP include the traditional modification programs offered by the GSE’s and Ginnie Mae, as well as the Firm’s proprietary modification programs, which include concessions similar to those offered under HAMP but with expanded eligibility criteria. In addition, the Firm has offered modification programs targeted specifically to borrowers with higher-risk mortgage products.

MHA, as well as the Firm’s other loss-mitigation programs, generally provide various concessions to financially troubled borrowers, including, but not limited to, interest rate reductions, term or payment extensions, and deferral or forgiveness of principal payments that would have otherwise been required under the terms of the original agreement. For the 70,200 on—balance sheet loans modified under HAMP and the Firm’s other loss-mitigation programs since July 1, 2009, 51% of permanent loan modifications have included interest rate reductions, 54% have included term or payment extensions, 10% have included principal deferment and 19% have included principal forgiveness. Principal forgiveness has been limited to specific modification programs to higher-risk borrowers. The sum of the percentages of the types of loan modifications exceeds 100% because, in some cases, the modification of an individual loan includes more than one type of concession.

Generally, borrowers must make at least three payments under the new terms during a trial modification period and be successfully re-underwritten with income verification before a mortgage or home equity loan can be permanently modified. When the Firm modifies home equity lines of credit, future lending commitments related to the modified loans are canceled as part of the terms of the modification.

The ultimate success of these modification programs and their impact on reducing credit losses remains uncertain given the short period of time since modification. The primary indicator used by management to monitor the success of these programs is the rate at which the modified loans redefault. Modification redefault rates are affected by a number of factors, including the type of loan modified, the borrower’s overall ability and willingness to repay the modified loan and other macroeconomic factors. Reduction in payment size for a borrower has shown to be the most significant driver in improving redefault rates. Modifications completed after July 1, 2009, whether under HAMP or under the Firm’s other modification programs, differ from modifications completed under prior programs in that they are generally fully underwritten after a successful trial payment period of at least three months. Performance metrics to date for modifications seasoned more than six months show weighted average redefault rates of 24% and 28% for HAMP and the Firm’s other modification programs, respectively. These redefault rates exclude certain recent modifications that were offered to borrowers who were current on their loans prior to modification, but who were subject to future recast risk. Redefault rates for these recent modifications are not meaningful because they have not yet seasoned. While the redefault rates for HAMP and the Firm’s other modification programs compare favorably to equivalent metrics for modifications completed under programs in effect prior to July 1, 2009, ultimate redefault rates will remain uncertain until modified loans have seasoned.

75

The following table presents information as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, relating to restructured on—balance sheet residential real estate loans for which concessions have been granted to borrowers experiencing financial difficulty. Modifications of PCI loans continue to be accounted for and reported as PCI loans, and the impact of the modification is incorporated into the Firm’s quarterly assessment of estimated future cash flows. Modifications of consumer loans other than PCI loans are generally accounted for and reported as TDRs.

Restructured residential real estate loans

	March 31, 2011				December 31, 2010
			Nonaccrual				Nonaccrual
	On balance		on balance		On balance		on balance
(in millions)	sheet loans		sheet loans(d)		sheet loans		sheet loans(d)
Restructured residential real estate loans — excluding PCI loans(a)(b)
Home equity — senior lien	$	234	$	38	$	226	$	38
Home equity — junior lien		409		178		283		63
Prime mortgage, including option ARMs		2,990		570		2,084		534
Subprime mortgage		2,754		595		2,751		632
Total restructured residential real estate loans — excluding PCI loans	$	6,387	$	1,381	$	5,344	$	1,267
Restructured PCI loans(c)
Home equity	$	607	NA		$	492	NA
Prime mortgage		3,251	NA			3,018	NA
Subprime mortgage		3,419	NA			3,329	NA
Option ARMs		11,832	NA			9,396	NA
Total restructured PCI loans	$	19,109	NA		$	16,235	NA

(a)	Amounts represent the carrying value of restructured residential real estate loans.
(b)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, $3.6 billion and $3.0 billion, respectively, of loans modified subsequent to repurchase from Ginnie Mae were excluded from loans accounted for as TDRs. When such loans perform subsequent to modification they are generally sold back into Ginnie Mae loan pools. Modified loans that do not re-perform become subject to foreclosure. Substantially all amounts due under the terms of these loans continue to be insured and where applicable, reimbursement of insured amounts is proceeding normally.
(c)	Amounts represent the unpaid principal balance of restructured PCI loans.
(d)	Nonaccrual loans modified in a TDR may be returned to accrual status when repayment is reasonably assured and the borrower has made a minimum of six payments under the new terms or three payments subsequent to permanent modification if trial modification payments were made. As of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, nonaccrual loans of $640 million and $580 million, respectively, were TDRs for which the borrowers had not yet made six payments under their modified terms.

Foreclosure prevention:Foreclosure is a last resort and the Firm makes significant efforts to help borrowers stay in their homes. Since the first quarter of 2009, the Firm has prevented two foreclosures (through loan modification, short sales and other foreclosure prevention means) for every foreclosure completed.

The Firm has a well-defined foreclosure prevention process when a borrower fails to pay on his or her loan. Customer contacts are attempted multiple times in various ways to pursue options other than foreclosure. In addition, if the Firm is unable to contact a customer, various reviews are completed of a borrower’s facts and circumstances before a foreclosure sale is completed. By the time of a foreclosure sale, borrowers have not made a payment on average for more than 14 months.

The foreclosure process is governed by laws and regulations established on a state-by-state basis. In some states, the foreclosure process involves a judicial process requiring filing documents with a court. In other states, the process is mostly non-judicial, involving various processes, some of which require filing documents with governmental agencies. During the third quarter of 2010, the Firm became aware that certain documents executed by Firm personnel in connection with the foreclosure process may not have complied with all applicable procedural requirements. For example, in certain instances, the underlying loan file review and verification of information for inclusion in an affidavit was performed by Firm personnel other than the affiant, or the affidavit may not have been properly notarized. The Firm instructed its outside foreclosure counsel to temporarily suspend foreclosures, foreclosure sales and evictions in 43 states so that it could review its processes. These matters are the subject of investigation by federal and state officials. For further discussion, see “Mortgage Foreclosure Investigations and Litigation” in Note 23 on pages 160–169 of this Form 10-Q.

As a result of these foreclosure process issues, the Firm has undertaken remedial actions to ensure that it satisfies all procedural requirements relating to mortgage foreclosures. These actions include:

• A complete review of the foreclosure document execution policies and procedures;

• The creation of model affidavits that will comply with all local law requirements and be used in every case;

• Implementation of enhanced procedures designed to ensure that employees who execute affidavits personally verify their contents and that the affidavits are executed only in the physical presence of a licensed notary;

76

• Extensive training for all personnel who will have responsibility for document execution going forward and certification of those personnel by outside counsel;

• Implementation of a rigorous quality control double-check review of affidavits completed by the Firm’s employees; and

• Review and verification of our revised procedures by outside experts.

In addition, the Firm has entered into Consent Orders with banking regulators relating to its residential mortgage servicing, foreclosure and loss mitigation activities. In their Orders, the regulators have mandated significant changes to the Firm’s servicing and default business and outlined requirements to implement these changes. The Consent Orders require, among other things, the Firm to submit, within 60 days of the Consent Orders, a comprehensive action plan setting forth the steps necessary to ensure the Firm’s residential mortgage servicing, foreclosure and loss mitigation activities are conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Consent Orders, and with respect to certain of the matters that are the subject of the action plan, they are required to implement corrective actions within 120 days of the Consent Orders. Additionally, pursuant to the Consent Orders, the Firm is required to retain an independent consultant to conduct a review of its residential foreclosure actions during the period from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2010 (including foreclosure actions brought in respect to loans being serviced), and to remediate any errors or deficiencies identified by the independent consultant, including, if required, by reimbursing borrowers for any identified financial injury they may have incurred. For additional information, see Note 23 on pages 160-169 of this Form 10-Q.

As of March 31, 2011, the Firm has resumed initiation of new foreclosure proceedings in nearly all states in which it had previously suspended such proceedings.

Nonperforming assets

The following table presents information as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, about consumer, excluding credit card nonperforming assets.

Nonperforming assets(a) (in millions)	March 31, 2011		December 31, 2010
Nonaccrual loans(b)
Home equity — senior lien	$	470	$	479
Home equity — junior lien		793		784
Prime mortgage, including option ARMs		4,166		4,320
Subprime mortgage		2,106		2,210
Auto		120		141
Business banking		810		832
Student and other		107		67
Total nonaccrual loans		8,572		8,833
Assets acquired in loan satisfactions
Real estate owned		1,211		1,294
Other		52		67
Total assets acquired in loan satisfactions		1,263		1,361
Total nonperforming assets	$	9,835	$	10,194

(a)

At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, nonperforming assets excluded: (1) mortgage loans insured by U.S. government agencies of $9.8 billion and $10.5 billion, respectively, that are accruing at the guaranteed reimbursement rate; (2) real estate owned insured by U.S. government agencies of $2.3 billion and $1.9 billion million, respectively; and (3) student loans that are 90 days or more past due and still accruing, which are insured by U.S. government agencies under the FFELP, of $615 million and $625 million, respectively. These amounts were excluded as reimbursement of insured amounts is proceeding normally.

(b)

Excludes PCI loans that were acquired as part of the Washington Mutual transaction, which are accounted for on a pool basis. Since each pool is accounted for as a single asset with a single composite interest rate and an aggregate expectation of cash flows, the past-due status of the pools, or that of individual loans within the pools, is not meaningful. Because the Firm is recognizing interest income on each pool of loans, they are all considered to be performing.

Nonaccrual loans:Total consumer nonaccrual loans, excluding credit card, were $8.6 billion, compared with $8.8 billion at December 31, 2010. Nonaccrual loans have stabilized, but remained at elevated levels. The increase in loan modification activities is expected to continue to result in elevated levels of nonaccrual loans in the residential real estate portfolios as a result of both redefault of modified loans as well as a result of the Firm’s policy that modified loans remain in nonaccrual status until repayment is reasonably assured and the borrower has made a minimum of six payments under the new terms or three payments subsequent to permanent modification if trial modification payments were made. Nonaccrual loans in the residential real estate portfolio totaled $7.5 billion at March 31, 2011, of which 74% were greater than 150 days past due; this compared with nonaccrual residential real estate loans of $7.8 billion at December 31, 2010, of which 71% were greater than 150 days past due. Modified residential real estate loans of $1.4 billion and $1.3 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively, were classified as nonaccrual loans. Of these modified residential real estate loans, $640 million and $580 million had yet to make six payments under their modified terms at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively, with the remaining nonaccrual modified loans having redefaulted. In the aggregate, the unpaid principal balance of residential real estate loans greater than 150 days past due was charged down by approximately 47% and 46% to estimated collateral value at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

77

Real estate owned (“REO”):REO assets, excluding those insured by U.S. government agencies, decreased by $83 million from December 31, 2010, to $1.2 billion.

Credit Card

Total credit card loans were $128.8 billion at March 31, 2011, a decrease of $8.9 billion from December 31, 2010, due to seasonality, higher repayment rates, and runoff of the Washington Mutual portfolio.

For the retained credit card loan portfolio the 30+ day delinquency rate decreased to 3.57% at March 31, 2011, from 4.14% at December 31, 2010, while the net charge-off rate decreased to 6.97%, for the three months ended March 31, 2011, from 11.75% for the three months ended March 31, 2010. The delinquency trend is showing improvement, especially within early-stage delinquencies. Charge-offs have improved as a result of lower delinquent loans. The credit card portfolio continues to reflect a well-seasoned, largely rewards-based portfolio that has good U.S. geographic diversification. The greatest geographic concentration of credit card retained loans is in California which represented 13% of total retained loans at both March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010. Loan concentration for the top five states of California, New York, Texas, Florida and Illinois consisted of $50.3 billion in receivables, or 40% of the retained loan portfolio, at March 31, 2011, compared with $54.4 billion, or 40%, at December 31, 2010.

Total retained credit card loans, excluding the Washington Mutual portfolio, were $112.4 billion at March 31, 2011, compared with $121.8 billion at December 31, 2010. The 30+ day delinquency rate was 3.23% at March 31, 2011, down from 3.73% at December 31, 2010, while the net charge-off rate decreased to 6.29% for the three months ended March 31, 2011, from 10.54% for the three months ended March 31, 2010.

Retained credit card loans in the Washington Mutual portfolio were $12.4 billion at March 31, 2011, compared with $13.7 billion at December 31, 2010. The Washington Mutual portfolio’s 30+ day delinquency rate was 6.63% at March 31, 2011, down from 7.74% at December 31, 2010. The net charge-off rate for the three months ended March 31, 2011, and 2010 was 12.98%, and 20.62%, respectively.

Modifications of credit card loans

For additional information about loan modification programs to borrowers, see Modifications of credit card loans on pages 137–138 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, the Firm had $9.2 billion and $10.0 billion, respectively, of on—balance sheet credit card loans outstanding that have been modified in TDRs. These balances include both credit card loans with modified payment terms and credit card loans that have reverted back to their pre-modification payment terms. The decrease in modified credit card loans outstanding from December 31, 2010, to March 31, 2011, is primarily attributable to a reduction in new modifications, while on-going payments or charge-offs on previously modified credit card loans also contributed to reducing the balance.

Consistent with the Firm’s policy, all credit card loans typically remain on accrual status. However, the Firm establishes an allowance for the estimated uncollectible portion of billed and accrued interest and fee income on credit card loans, which is reflected as a charge to interest income.

78

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT EXPOSURE

The Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) encourages banks to meet the credit needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including neighborhoods with low or moderate incomes. JPMorgan Chase is a national leader in community development by providing loans, investments and community development services in communities across the United States.

At both March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, the Firm’s CRA loan portfolio was approximately $16 billion. At March 31, 2001, and December 31, 2010, 64% and 65%, respectively, of the CRA portfolio were residential mortgage loans; 17% and 15%, respectively, were business banking loans; 9% were commercial real estate loans at both periods; and 10% and 11%, respectively, were other loans. CRA nonaccrual loans were 5% and 6% of the Firm’s nonaccrual loans at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively. Net charge-offs in the CRA portfolio were 2% and 3%, respectively, of the Firm’s net charge-offs for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010.

ALLOWANCE FOR CREDIT LOSSES

JPMorgan Chase’s allowance for loan losses covers the wholesale (risk-rated), and consumer (primarily scored) portfolios. The allowance represents management’s estimate of probable credit losses inherent in the Firm’s loan portfolio. Management also determines an allowance for wholesale and consumer (excluding credit card) lending-related commitments using a methodology similar to that used for the wholesale loans.

For a further discussion of the components of the allowance for credit losses, see Critical Accounting Estimates Used by the Firm on pages 86–89 and Note 14 on pages 139–140 of this Form 10-Q.

At least quarterly, the allowance for credit losses is reviewed by the Chief Risk Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and the Controller of the Firm and discussed with the Risk Policy and Audit Committees of the Board of Directors of the Firm. As of March 31, 2011, JPMorgan Chase deemed the allowance for credit losses to be appropriate (i.e., sufficient to absorb losses inherent in the portfolio).

The allowance for credit losses was $30.4 billion at March 31, 2011, a decrease of $2.5 billion from $33.0 billion at December 31, 2010. The credit card allowance for loan losses decreased $2.0 billion from December 31, 2010, primarily as a result of lower estimated losses. The wholesale allowance for loan losses decreased by $527 million from December 31, 2010, primarily related to the impact of loan sales.

The allowance for lending-related commitments for both wholesale and consumer, excluding credit card, which is reported in other liabilities, was $688 million and $717 million at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

79

The credit ratios in the table below are based on retained loan balances, which exclude loans held-for-sale and loans accounted for at fair value.

Summary of changes in the allowance for credit losses

	2011												2010
				Consumer,												Consumer,
Three months ended March 31,				excluding												excluding
(in millions, except ratios)	Wholesale			credit card			Credit Card			Total			Wholesale			credit card			Credit Card			Total
Allowance for loan losses
Beginning balance at January 1,	$	4,761		$	16,471		$	11,034		$	32,266		$	7,145		$	14,785		$	9,672		$	31,602
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principles(a)		—			—			—			—			14			127			7,353			7,494
Gross charge-offs		253			1,460			2,631			4,344			1,014			2,555			4,882			8,451
Gross (recoveries)		(88	)		(131	)		(405	)		(624	)		(55	)		(116	)		(370	)		(541	)
Net charge-offs		165			1,329			2,226			3,720			959			2,439			4,512			7,910
Provision for loan losses		(359	)		1,329			226			1,196			(257	)		3,736			3,512			6,991
Other		(3	)		4			7			8			(1	)		3			7			9
Ending balance	$	4,234		$	16,475		$	9,041		$	29,750		$	5,942		$	16,212		$	16,032		$	38,186
Impairment methodology
Asset-specific(b)(c)(d)	$	1,030		$	1,067		$	3,819		$	5,916		$	1,557		$	911		$	5,402		$	7,870
Formula-based(d)		3,204			10,467			5,222			18,893			4,385			12,490			10,630			27,505
PCI		—			4,941			—			4,941			—			2,811			—			2,811
Total allowance for loan losses	$	4,234		$	16,475		$	9,041		$	29,750		$	5,942		$	16,212		$	16,032		$	38,186
Allowance for lending-related commitments
Beginning balance at January 1,	$	711		$	6		$	—		$	717		$	927		$	12		$	—		$	939
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principles(a)		—			—			—			—			(18	)		—			—			(18	)
Provision for lending-related commitments		(27	)		—			—			(27	)		21			(2	)		—			19
Other		(2	)		—			—			(2	)		—			—			—			—
Ending balance	$	682		$	6		$	—		$	688		$	930		$	10		$	—		$	940
Impairment methodology
Asset-specific	$	184		$	—		$	—		$	184		$	296		$	—		$	—		$	296
Formula-based		498			6			—			504			634			10			—			644
Total allowance for lending-related commitments	$	682		$	6		$	—		$	688		$	930		$	10		$	—		$	940
Total allowance for credit losses	$	4,916		$	16,481		$	9,041		$	30,438		$	6,872		$	16,222		$	16,032		$	39,126
Memo:
Retained loans, end of period	$	229,648		$	320,998		$	124,791		$	675,437		$	210,211		$	347,370		$	149,260		$	706,841
Retained loans, average		226,544			323,961			129,535			680,040			211,599			351,159			155,790			718,548
PCI loans		56			70,765			—			70,821			107			79,323			—			79,430
Credit ratios
Allowance for loan losses to retained loans		1.84	%		5.13	%		7.24	%		4.40	%		2.83	%		4.67	%		10.74	%		5.40	%
Allowance for loan losses to retained nonaccrual loans(d)		92			192		NM				226			101			150		NM				228
Allowance for loan losses to retained nonaccrual loans excluding credit card		92			192		NM				157			101			150		NM				133
Net charge-off rates(e)		0.30			1.66			6.97			2.22			1.84			2.82			11.75			4.46
Credit ratios excluding home lending PCI loans
Allowance for loan losses to retained loans(f)		1.84			4.61			7.24			4.10			2.83			5.00			10.74			5.64
Allowance for loan losses to retained nonaccrual loans(d)(f)		92			135		NM				189			101			124		NM				212
Allowance for loan losses to retained nonaccrual loans excluding credit card(d)(f)		92			135		NM				120			101			124		NM				116

(a)	Effective January 1, 2010, the Firm adopted accounting guidance related to VIEs. Upon adoption of the guidance, the Firm consolidated its Firm-sponsored credit card securitization trusts, its Firm-administered multi-seller conduits and certain other consumer loan securitization entities, primarily mortgage-related. As a result, $7.4 billion, $14 million and $127 million, respectively, of allowance for loan losses were recorded on-balance sheet with the consolidation of these entities. For further discussion, see Note 16 on pages 244–259 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.
(b)	Includes risk-rated loans that have been placed on nonaccrual status and loans that have been modified in a TDR.
(c)	The asset-specific consumer, excluding credit card, allowance for loan losses includes TDR reserves of $970 million and $754 million at March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

80

(d)	The Firm’s policy is generally to exempt credit card loans from being placed on nonaccrual status as permitted by regulatory guidance. Under the guidance issued by the FFIEC, credit card loans are charged off by the end of the month in which the account becomes 180 days past due or within 60 days from receiving notification about a specified event (e.g., bankruptcy of the borrower), whichever is earlier.
(e)	Charge-offs are not recorded on PCI loans until actual losses exceed estimated losses recorded as purchase accounting adjustments at the time of acquisition.
(f)	Excludes the impact of PCI loans acquired as part of the Washington Mutual transaction.

Provision for credit losses

The provision for credit losses was $1.2 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2011, down by $5.8 billion, or 83%, from the prior year. Excluding credit card, the consumer provision for credit losses was $1.3 billion, down by $2.4 billion, or 64%, from the prior-year driven by the absence of additions to the allowance for loan losses and lower net charge-offs. The credit card provision for credit losses was $226 million, down by $3.3 billion, or 94%, from the prior-year driven primarily by improved delinquency trends and a reduction in the allowance for loan losses as a result of lower estimated losses. The wholesale provision for credit losses was a benefit of $386 million, compared with a benefit of $236 million from the prior-year primarily reflecting continued improvement in the credit environment from the year-ago period.

							Provision for lending-						Total provision
	Provision for loan losses						related commitments						for credit losses
Three months ended March 31, (in millions)	2011			2010			2011			2010			2011			2010
Wholesale	$	(359	)	$	(257	)	$	(27	)	$	21		$	(386	)	$	(236	)
Consumer, excluding credit card		1,329			3,736			—			(2	)		1,329			3,734
Credit card		226			3,512			—			—			226			3,512
Total provision for credit losses	$	1,196		$	6,991		$	(27	)	$	19		$	1,169		$	7,010

MARKET RISK MANAGEMENT

For a discussion of the Firm’s market risk management organization, major market risk drivers and classification of risks, see pages 142–146 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Value-at-risk

JPMorgan Chase utilizes VaR, a statistical risk measure, to estimate the potential loss from adverse market moves. Each business day, as part of its risk management activities, the Firm undertakes a comprehensive VaR calculation that includes the majority of its material market risks. VaR provides a consistent cross-business measure of risk profiles and levels of diversification and is used for comparing risks across businesses and monitoring limits. These VaR results are reported to senior management and regulators, and they are utilized in regulatory capital calculations.

The Firm calculates VaR to estimate possible economic outcomes for current positions using historical data from the previous 12 months. This approach assumes that historical changes in market values are representative of current risk; this assumption may not always be valid. VaR is calculated using a one-day time horizon and an expected tail-loss methodology, which approximates a 95% confidence level. This means the Firm would expect to incur losses greater than that predicted by VaR estimates five times in every 100 trading days, or about 12 to 13 times a year.

81

The table below shows the results of the Firm’s VaR measure using a 95% confidence level.

Total IB trading VaR by risk type, credit portfolio VaR and other VaR

	Three months ended March 31,
	2011									2010									At March 31,
(in millions)	Avg.			Min.			Max			Avg.			Min.			Max			2011			2010
IB VaR by risk type:
Fixed income	$	49		$	44		$	56		$	69		$	43		$	84		$	55		$	56
Foreign exchange		11			9			17			13			7			20			11			15
Equities		29			19			42			24			10			52			22			20
Commodities and other		13			8			20			15			11			23			10			14
Diversification benefit to IB trading VaR		(38	)(a)	NM		(b)	NM		(b)		(49	)(a)	NM		(b)	NM		(b)		(37	)(a)		(43	)(a)
IB trading VaR	$	64		$	40		$	80		$	72		$	43		$	102		$	61		$	62
Credit portfolio VaR		26			22			33			19			15			25			28			20
Diversification benefit to IB trading and credit portfolio VaR		(7	)(a)	NM		(b)	NM		(b)		(9	)(a)	NM		(b)	NM		(b)		(7	)(a)		(8	)(a)
Total IB trading and credit portfolio VaR	$	83		$	53		$	102		$	82		$	53		$	116		$	82		$	74
Mortgage Banking VaR		16			10			32			25			15			38			18			25
Chief Investment Office (“CIO”) VaR		60			55			64			70			59			80			55			77
Diversification benefit to total other VaR		(14	)(a)	NM		(b)	NM		(b)		(13	)(a)	NM		(b)	NM		(b)		(13	)(a)		(16	)(a)
Total other VaR	$	62		$	55		$	69		$	82		$	70		$	100		$	60		$	86
Diversification benefit to total IB and other VaR		(57	)(a)	NM		(b)	NM		(b)		(66	)(a)	NM		(b)	NM		(b)		(56	)(a)		(83	)(a)
Total IB and other VaR	$	88		$	67		$	104		$	98		$	67		$	137		$	86		$	77

(a)	Average VaR and period-end VaR were less than the sum of the VaR of the components described above, which is due to portfolio diversification. The diversification effect reflects the fact that the risks were not perfectly correlated. The risk of a portfolio of positions is therefore usually less than the sum of the risks of the positions themselves.
(b)	Designated as not meaningful (“NM”), because the minimum and maximum may occur on different days for different risk components, and hence it is not meaningful to compute a portfolio-diversification effect.

VaR Measurement

IB trading VaR includes substantially all trading activities in IB, including the credit spread sensitivities of certain mortgage products and syndicated lending facilities that the Firm intends to distribute. The Firm uses proxies to estimate the VaR for these products, since daily time series are largely not available. It is likely that using an actual price-based time series for these products, if available, would affect the VaR results presented. In addition, for certain products included in IB trading and credit portfolio VaR, particular risk parameters are not fully captured — for example, correlation risk.

Credit portfolio VaR includes the derivative credit valuation adjustment (“CVA”), hedges of the CVA and mark-to-market (“MTM”) hedges of the retained loan portfolio, which are reported in principal transactions revenue. However, Credit portfolio VaR does not include the retained portfolio, which is not MTM.

Total other VaR includes certain positions employed as part of the Firm’s risk management function within the Chief Investment Office (“CIO”) and in the Mortgage Banking business. CIO VaR includes positions, primarily in debt securities and credit products, used to manage structural and other risks including interest rate, credit and mortgage risks arising from the Firm’s ongoing business activities. Mortgage Banking VaR includes the Firm’s mortgage pipeline and warehouse loans, MSRs and all related hedges.

In the Firm’s view, including IB trading and credit portfolio VaR within total other VaR produces a more complete and transparent perspective of the Firm’s market risk profile.

As noted above, IB, Credit portfolio and other VaR does not include the retained credit portfolio, which is not marked to market; however, it does include hedges of those positions. It also does not include debit valuation adjustments (“DVA”) taken on derivative and structured liabilities to reflect the credit quality of the Firm, principal investments (mezzanine financing, tax-oriented investments, etc.), and certain securities and investments held by the Corporate/Private Equity line of business, including private equity investments, capital management positions and longer-term investments managed by CIO. These longer-term positions are managed through the Firm’s earnings at risk and other cash flow monitoring processes, rather than by using a VaR measure. Principal investing activities and Private Equity positions are managed using stress and scenario analyses. See the DVA Sensitivity table on page 84 of this Form 10-Q for further details. For a discussion of Corporate/Private Equity, see pages 38–39 of this Form 10-Q.

82

First-quarter 2011 VaR results

As presented in the table, average total IB and other VaR totaled $88 million for the first three months of 2011, compared with $98 million for the comparable 2010 period. The decrease in average VaR was driven by a decline in market volatility, as well as a reduction in exposures, primarily in CIO and Mortgage Banking. Average total IB trading and credit portfolio VaR for the first three months of 2011 was $83 million, compared with $82 million for the first quarter of 2010.

CIO VaR averaged $60 million for the first three months of 2011, compared with $70 million a year ago. Mortgage Banking VaR averaged $16 million for the first three months of 2011, compared with $25 million a year ago. Decreases in CIO and Mortgage Banking VaR for 2011 were driven by the decline in market volatility and position changes.

The Firm’s average IB and other VaR diversification benefit was $57 million or 39% of the sum for the first three months of 2011, compared with $66 million or 40% of the sum for the first three months of 2010. In general, over the course of the year, VaR exposure can vary significantly as positions change, market volatility fluctuates and diversification benefits change.

VaR back-testing

The Firm conducts daily back-testing of VaR against its market risk-related revenue, which is defined as the change in value of: principal transactions revenue for IB and CIO (less Private Equity gains/losses and revenue from longer-term CIO investments); trading-related net interest income for IB, CIO and Mortgage Banking; IB brokerage commissions, underwriting fees or other revenue; revenue from syndicated lending facilities that the Firm intends to distribute; and mortgage fees and related income for the Firm’s mortgage pipeline and warehouse loans, MSRs, and all related hedges. Daily firmwide market risk—related revenue excludes gains and losses from DVA.

The following histogram illustrates the daily market risk—related gains and losses for IB, CIO and Mortgage Banking positions for the first three months of 2011. The chart shows that the Firm posted market risk—related gains on each of the 64 days in this period, with seven days exceeding $160 million.

83

The following table provides information about the gross sensitivity of DVA to a one-basis-point increase in JPMorgan Chase’s credit spreads. This sensitivity represents the impact from a one-basis-point parallel shift in JPMorgan Chase’s entire credit curve. As credit curves do not typically move in a parallel fashion, the sensitivity multiplied by the change in spreads at a single maturity point may not be representative of the actual revenue recognized.

Debit valuation adjustment sensitivity

	1 Basis point increase
(in millions)	in JPMorgan Chase’s credit spread
March 31, 2011		$35
December 31, 2010		35

Economic-value stress testing

While VaR reflects the risk of loss due to adverse changes in markets using recent historical market behavior as an indicator of losses, stress testing captures the Firm’s exposure to unlikely but plausible events in abnormal markets using multiple scenarios that assume significant changes in credit spreads, equity prices, interest rates, currency rates or commodity prices. Scenarios are updated dynamically and may be redefined on an ongoing basis to reflect current market conditions. Along with VaR, stress testing is important in measuring and controlling risk; it enhances understanding of the Firm’s risk profile and loss potential, as stress losses are monitored against limits. Stress testing is also employed in cross-business risk management. Stress-test results, trends and explanations based on current market risk positions are reported to the Firm’s senior management and to the lines of business to allow them to better understand event risk—sensitive positions and manage risks with more transparency.

Earnings-at-risk stress testing

The VaR and stress-test measures described above illustrate the total economic sensitivity of the Firm’s Consolidated Balance Sheets to changes in market variables. The effect of interest rate exposure reported on net income is also important. For further discussion on the effect of interest rate exposure, see pages 145–146 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

The Firm conducts simulations of changes in net interest income from its nontrading activities under a variety of interest rate scenarios. Earnings-at-risk tests measure the potential change in the Firm’s net interest income, and the corresponding impact to the Firm’s pretax earnings, over the following 12 months. These tests highlight exposures to various rate-sensitive factors, such as the rates themselves (e.g., the prime lending rate), pricing strategies on deposits, optionality and changes in product mix. The tests include forecasted balance sheet changes, such as asset sales and securitizations, as well as prepayment and reinvestment behavior. Mortgage prepayment assumptions are based on current interest rates compared with underlying contractual rates, the time since origination, and other factors which are updated periodically based on historical experience and forward market expectations. The balance and pricing assumptions of deposits that have no stated maturity are based on historical performance, the competitive environment, customer behavior, and product mix.

Immediate changes in interest rates present a limited view of risk, and so a number of alternative scenarios are also reviewed. These scenarios include the implied forward curve, nonparallel rate shifts and severe interest rate shocks on selected key rates. These scenarios are intended to provide a comprehensive view of JPMorgan Chase’s earnings at risk over a wide range of outcomes.

JPMorgan Chase’s 12-month pretax earnings sensitivity profiles as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, were as follows.

	Immediate change in rates
(in millions)	+200bp		+100bp		-100bp	-200bp
March 31, 2011	$	2,340	$	1,427	NM(a)	NM(a)
December 31, 2010		2,465		1,483	NM(a)	NM(a)

(a) Downward 100- and 200-basis-point parallel shocks result in a Fed Funds target rate of zero and negative three- and six-month treasury rates. The earnings-at-risk results of such a low-probability scenario are not meaningful.

The change in earnings at risk from December 31, 2010, resulted from investment portfolio repositioning, partially offset by assumed higher levels of deposit balances. The Firm’s risk to rising rates was largely the result of widening deposit margins, which are currently compressed due to very low short-term interest rates.

Additionally, under another interest rate scenario used by the Firm — involving a steeper yield curve with long-term rates rising by 100 basis points and short-term rates staying at current levels — results in a 12-month pretax earnings benefit of $691 million. The increase in earnings under this scenario is due to reinvestment of maturing assets at the higher long-term rates, with funding costs remaining unchanged.

84

PRIVATE EQUITY RISK MANAGEMENT

For a discussion of Private Equity Risk Management, see page 147 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report. At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, the carrying value of the Private Equity portfolio was $10.1 billion and $8.7 billion, respectively, of which $731 million and $875 million, respectively, represented securities with publicly available market quotations.

OPERATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT

For a discussion of JPMorgan Chase’s Operational Risk Management, see pages 147–148 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

REPUTATION AND FIDUCIARY RISK MANAGEMENT

For a discussion of the Firm’s Reputation and Fiduciary Risk Management, see page 148 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the Supervision and Regulation section on pages 1–5 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Form 10-K.

Dividends

At March 31, 2011, JPMorgan Chase’s bank subsidiaries could pay, in the aggregate, $3.1 billion in dividends to their respective bank holding companies without the prior approval of their relevant banking regulators.

85

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES USED BY THE FIRM

JPMorgan Chase’s accounting policies and use of estimates are integral to understanding its reported results. The Firm’s most complex accounting estimates require management’s judgment to ascertain the value 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 value of its assets and liabilities are appropriate. The following is a brief description of the Firm’s critical accounting estimates involving significant valuation judgments.

Allowance for credit losses

JPMorgan Chase’s allowance for credit losses covers the retained wholesale and consumer loan portfolios, as well as the Firm’s wholesale and consumer lending-related commitments. The allowance for loan losses is intended to adjust the value of the Firm’s loan assets to reflect probable credit losses inherent in the portfolio as of the balance sheet date. The allowance for lending-related commitments is established to cover probable losses in the lending-related commitments portfolio. For a further discussion of the methodologies used in establishing the Firm’s allowance for credit losses, see Allowance for Credit Losses on pages 149–150, and Note 15 on pages 239–243 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report; for amounts recorded as of March 31, 2011 and 2010, see Allowance for Credit Losses on pages 79–81, and Note 14 on pages 139–140 of this Form 10-Q.

As noted in the discussion on page 149 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report, the Firm’s wholesale allowance is sensitive to the risk rating assigned to a loan. As of March 31, 2011, assuming a one-notch downgrade in the Firm’s internal risk ratings for its entire wholesale portfolio, the allowance for loan losses for the wholesale portfolio would increase by approximately $1.2 billion. This sensitivity analysis is hypothetical. In the Firm’s view, the likelihood of a one-notch downgrade for all wholesale loans within a short timeframe is remote. The purpose of this analysis is to provide an indication of the impact of risk ratings on the estimate of the allowance for loan losses for wholesale loans. It is not intended to imply management’s expectation of future deterioration in risk ratings. Given the process the Firm follows in determining the risk ratings of its loans, management believes the risk ratings currently assigned to wholesale loans are appropriate.

86

The allowance for credit losses for the consumer portfolio, including credit card, is sensitive to changes in the economic environment, delinquency status, the realizable value of collateral, FICO scores, borrower behavior and other risk factors, and is intended to represent management’s best estimate of probable losses inherent in the portfolio as of the balance sheet date. The credit performance of the consumer portfolio across the entire consumer credit product spectrum has stabilized but high unemployment and weak overall economic conditions continue to result in an elevated level of charge-offs, while weak housing prices continue to negatively affect the severity of losses realized on residential real estate loans that default. Significant judgment is required to estimate the duration and severity of the recent economic downturn, as well as its potential impact on housing prices and the labor market. While the allowance for credit losses is highly sensitive to both home prices and unemployment rates, in the current market it is difficult to estimate how potential changes in one or both of these factors might affect the allowance for credit losses. For example, while both factors are important determinants of overall allowance levels, changes in one factor or the other may not occur at the same rate, or changes may be directionally inconsistent such that improvement in one factor may offset deterioration in the other. In addition, changes in these factors would not necessarily be consistent across all geographies or product types. Finally, it is difficult to predict the extent to which changes in both or either of these factors would ultimately affect the frequency of losses, the severity of losses or both; overall loss rates are a function of both the frequency and severity of individual loan losses.

Fair value of financial instruments, MSRs and commodities inventory

JPMorgan Chase carries a portion of its assets and liabilities at fair value. The majority of such assets and liabilities are measured at fair value on a recurring basis. Certain assets and liabilities are measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis, including loans accounted for at the lower of cost or fair value that are only subject to fair value adjustments under certain circumstances.

Assets measured at fair value

The following table includes the Firm’s assets measured at fair value and the portion of such assets that are classified within level 3 of the valuation hierarchy.

	March 31, 2011						December 31, 2010
	Total at						Total at
(in billions)	fair value			Level 3 total			fair value			Level 3 total
Trading debt and equity instruments(a)	$	422.4		$	33.6		$	409.4		$	33.9
Derivative receivables — gross		1,340.5			33.7			1,529.4			35.3
Netting adjustment		(1,261.8	)		—			(1,448.9	)		—
Derivative receivables — net		78.7			33.7	(d)		80.5			35.3	(d)
AFS securities		334.8			15.5			316.3			14.3
Loans		1.8			1.4			2.0			1.5
MSRs		13.1			13.1			13.6			13.6
Private equity investments		9.6			8.9			8.7			7.9
Other(b)		45.4			4.5			43.8			4.1
Total assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis		905.8			110.7			874.3			110.6
Total assets measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis(c)		7.4			5.4			10.1			4.2
Total assets measured at fair value	$	913.2		$	116.1	(e)	$	884.4		$	114.8	(e)
Total Firm assets	$	2,198.2					$	2,117.6
Level 3 assets as a percentage of total Firm assets					5	%					5	%
Level 3 assets as a percentage of total Firm assets at fair value					13						13

(a)	Includes physical commodities generally carried at the lower of cost or fair value.
(b)	Includes certain securities purchased under resale agreements, securities borrowed, accrued interest receivable and other investments.
(c)	Predominantly includes mortgage, home equity and other loans, where the carrying value is based on the fair value of the underlying collateral, and on credit card and leveraged lending loans carried on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at the lower of cost or fair value.
(d)	Derivative receivable and derivative payable balances, and the related cash collateral received and paid, are presented net on the Consolidated Balance Sheets where there is a legally enforceable master netting agreement in place with counterparties. For purposes of the table above, the Firm does not reduce level 3 derivative receivable balances for netting adjustments, as such an adjustment is not relevant to a presentation based on the transparency of inputs to the valuation. Therefore, the derivative balances reported in the fair value hierarchy levels are gross of any counterparty netting adjustments. However, if the Firm were to net such balances within level 3, the reduction in the level 3 derivative receivable and payable balances would be $12.1 billion and $12.7 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively, exclusive of the netting benefit associated with cash collateral, which would further reduce the level 3 balances.
(e)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included $63.0 billion and $66.0 billion, respectively, of level 3 assets, consisting of recurring and nonrecurring assets carried by IB.

87

Valuation

For instruments classified within level 3 of the hierarchy, judgments used to estimate fair value may be significant. In arriving at an estimate of fair value for an instrument within level 3, management must first determine the appropriate model to use. Second, due to the lack of observability of significant inputs, management must assess all relevant empirical data in deriving valuation inputs — including, but not limited to, yield curves, interest rates, volatilities, equity or debt prices, foreign exchange rates and credit curves. In addition to market information, models also incorporate transaction details, such as maturity. Finally, management judgment must be applied to assess the appropriate level of valuation adjustments to reflect counterparty credit quality, the Firm’s creditworthiness, constraints on liquidity and unobservable parameters, where relevant. The judgments made are typically affected by the type of product and its specific contractual terms, and the level of liquidity for the product or within the market as a whole. For further discussion of changes in level 3 assets, see Note 3 on pages 94–105 of this Form 10-Q.

Imprecision in estimating unobservable market inputs can affect the amount of revenue or loss recorded for a particular position. Furthermore, while the Firm believes its valuation methods are appropriate and consistent with those of other market participants, the use of different methodologies or assumptions to determine the fair value of certain financial instruments could result in a different estimate of fair value at the reporting date. For a detailed discussion of the determination of fair value for individual financial instruments, see Note 3 on pages 170–187 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Purchased credit-impaired loans

In connection with the Washington Mutual transaction, JPMorgan Chase acquired certain loans with evidence of deterioration of credit quality since origination and for which it was probable, at acquisition, that the Firm would be unable to collect all contractually required payments receivable. These loans are considered to be PCI loans and are accounted for as described in Note 14 on pages 220–238 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report. The application of the accounting guidance for PCI loans requires a number of significant estimates and judgments, such as determining: (i) which loans are within the scope of PCI accounting guidance, (ii) the fair value of the PCI loans at acquisition, (iii) how loans are aggregated to apply the guidance on accounting for pools of loans, and (iv) estimates of cash flows to be collected over the term of the loans. For additional information on PCI loans, including the significant assumptions, estimates and judgment involved, see PCI loans on pages 152–153 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report and Note 14 on pages 139–140 of this Form 10-Q.

As of March 31, 2011, a 1% decrease in expected future principal cash payments for the entire portfolio of PCI loans would result in the recognition of an allowance for loan losses for these loans of approximately $650 million.

Goodwill impairment

Management applies significant judgment when testing goodwill for impairment. For a description of the significant valuation judgments associated with goodwill impairment, see Goodwill impairment on page 153 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

During the three months ended March 31, 2011, the Firm updated the discounted cash flow valuations of certain consumer lending businesses in RFS and CS, which continue to have elevated risk for goodwill impairment due to their exposure to U.S. consumer credit risk and the effects of regulatory and legislative changes. The assumptions used in the valuation of these businesses include a) estimates of future cash flows for the business (which are dependent on portfolio outstanding balances, net interest margin, operating expense, credit losses and the amount of capital necessary given the risk of business activities to meet regulatory capital requirements), and (b) the cost of equity used to discount those cash flows to a present value. Each of these factors requires significant judgment and the assumptions used are based on management’s best estimate and most current projections, including the anticipated effects of regulatory and legislative changes, derived from the Firm’s business forecasting process reviewed with senior management. These projections are consistent with the short-term assumptions discussed in the Business Outlook on pages 8–10 of this Form 10-Q, and, in the longer term, incorporate a set of macroeconomic assumptions and the Firm’s best estimates of long-term growth and returns of its businesses. Where possible, the Firm uses third-party and peer data to benchmark its assumptions and estimates.

88

In addition, for its other businesses, the Firm reviewed current conditions (including the estimated effects of regulatory and legislative changes) and prior projections of business performance. Based upon the updated valuations for its consumer lending businesses and reviews of its other businesses, the Firm concluded that goodwill allocated to all of its reporting units was not impaired at March 31, 2011. However, the fair value of the Firm’s consumer lending businesses in RFS and CS each exceeded their carrying values by approximately 18% and 7% respectively and the associated goodwill remains at an elevated risk of impairment due to their exposure to U.S. consumer credit risk and the effects of economic, regulatory and legislative changes. For example, in RFS, such declines could result from deterioration in economic conditions that result in increased credit losses, including decreases in home prices beyond management expectations. In CS, such declines could result from deterioration in economic conditions such as increased unemployment claims or bankruptcy filings that result in increased credit losses or changes in customer behavior that cause decreased account activity or receivable balances. In both RFS and CS, such declines could also result from unanticipated effects of regulatory or legislative changes.

Deterioration in economic market conditions, increased estimates of the effects of recent regulatory or legislative changes, or additional regulatory or legislative changes may result in declines in projected business performance beyond management’s current expectations. Such declines in business performance, or increases in the estimated cost of equity, could cause the estimated fair values of the Firm’s reporting units or their associated goodwill to decline, which could result in a material impairment charge to earnings in a future period related to some portion of the associated goodwill.

For additional information on goodwill, see Note 16 on pages 149–150 of this Form 10-Q.

Income taxes

For a description of the significant assumptions, judgments and interpretations associated with the accounting for income taxes, see Income taxes on page 154 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING DEVELOPMENTS

Fair value measurements and disclosures

In January 2010, the FASB issued guidance that requires new disclosures, and clarifies existing disclosure requirements, about fair value measurements. The clarifications and the requirement to separately disclose transfers of instruments between level 1 and level 2 of the fair value hierarchy are effective for interim reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2009; the Firm adopted this guidance in the first quarter of 2010. For additional information about the impact of the adoption of the new fair value measurements guidance, see Note 3 on pages 94–105 of this Form 10-Q. In addition, a new requirement to provide purchases, sales, issuances and settlements in the level 3 rollforward on a gross basis is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2010. The Firm adopted the new guidance, effective January 1, 2011.

Disclosures about the credit quality of financing receivables and the allowance for credit losses

In July 2010, the FASB issued guidance that requires enhanced disclosures surrounding the credit characteristics of the Firm’s loan portfolio. Under the new guidance, the Firm is required to disclose its accounting policies; the methods it uses to determine the components of the allowance for credit losses; and qualitative and quantitative information about the credit risk inherent in the loan portfolio, including additional information on certain types of loan modifications. For the Firm, the new disclosures, other than those related to loan modifications, became effective for the 2010 Annual Report. For additional information, see Notes 13 and 14 on pages 122–140 of this Form 10-Q. The adoption of this guidance only affected JPMorgan Chase’s disclosures of financing receivables and not its Consolidated Balance Sheets or results of operations. New disclosures regarding TDRs will become effective for the third quarter 2011 Form 10-Q.

Determining whether a restructuring is a troubled debt restructuring

In April 2011, the FASB issued guidance to clarify existing standards for determining whether a restructuring represents a TDR from the perspective of the creditor. The guidance is effective in the third quarter of 2011, and must be applied retrospective to January 1, 2011. The Firm does not expect that the implementation of this new guidance will have a significant impact on the Firm’s Consolidated Balance Sheets or results of operations.

Accounting for repurchase and similar agreements

In April 2011, the FASB issued guidance that amends the criteria used to assess whether repurchase and similar agreements should be accounted for as financings or sales (purchases) with forward agreements to repurchase (resell). Specifically, the guidance eliminates circumstances in which the lack of adequate collateral maintenance requirements could result in a repurchase agreement being accounted for as a sale. The guidance is effective for new transactions or existing transactions that are modified beginning January 1, 2012. The Firm has accounted for its repurchase and similar agreements as secured financings, and therefore, the Firm does not expect the application of this guidance will have a significant impact on the Firm’s Consolidated Balance Sheets or results of operations.

89

JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME (UNAUDITED)

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except per share data)	2011			2010
Revenue
Investment banking fees	$	1,793		$	1,461
Principal transactions		4,745			4,548
Lending-and deposit-related fees		1,546			1,646
Asset management, administration and commissions		3,606			3,265
Securities gains(a)		102			610
Mortgage fees and related income		(487	)		658
Credit card income		1,437			1,361
Other income		574			412
Noninterest revenue		13,316			13,961
Interest income		15,447			16,845
Interest expense		3,542			3,135
Net interest income		11,905			13,710
Total net revenue		25,221			27,671
Provision for credit losses		1,169			7,010
Noninterest expense
Compensation expense		8,263			7,276
Occupancy expense		978			869
Technology, communications and equipment expense		1,200			1,137
Professional and outside services		1,735			1,575
Marketing		659			583
Other expense		2,943			4,441
Amortization of intangibles		217			243
Total noninterest expense		15,995			16,124
Income before income tax expense		8,057			4,537
Income tax expense		2,502			1,211
Net income	$	5,555		$	3,326
Net income applicable to common stockholders	$	5,136		$	2,974
Net income per common share data
Basic earnings per share	$	1.29		$	0.75
Diluted earnings per share		1.28			0.74
Weighted-average basic shares		3,981.6			3,970.5
Weighted-average diluted shares		4,014.1			3,994.7
Cash dividends declared per common share	$	0.25		$	0.05

(a) The following other-than-temporary impairment losses are included in securities gains for the periods presented.

	Three months ended March 31,
	2011			2010
Total other-than-temporary impairment losses	$	(27	)	$	(94	)
Losses recorded in/(reclassified from) other comprehensive income		(3	)		(6	)
Total credit losses recognized in income	$	(30	)	$	(100	)

The Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (unaudited) are an integral part of these statements.

90

JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (UNAUDITED)

	March 31,			December 31,
(in millions, except share data)	2011			2010
Assets
Cash and due from banks	$	23,469		$	27,567
Deposits with banks		80,842			21,673
Federal funds sold and securities purchased under resale agreements (included$19,998 and $20,299 at fair value)		217,356			222,554
Securities borrowed (included$15,334 and $13,961 at fair value)		119,000			123,587
Trading assets (included assets pledged of$100,385 and $73,056)		501,148			489,892
Securities (included$334,784 and $316,318 at fair value and assets pledged of$93,668 and $86,891)		334,800			316,336
Loans (included$1,805 and $1,976 at fair value)		685,996			692,927
Allowance for loan losses		(29,750	)		(32,266	)
Loans, net of allowance for loan losses		656,246			660,661
Accrued interest and accounts receivable		79,236			70,147
Premises and equipment		13,422			13,355
Goodwill		48,856			48,854
Mortgage servicing rights		13,093			13,649
Other intangible assets		3,857			4,039
Other assets (included$19,610 and $18,201 at fair value and assets pledged of$1,603 and $1,485)		106,836			105,291
Total assets(a)	$	2,198,161		$	2,117,605
Liabilities
Deposits (included$4,277 and $4,369 at fair value)	$	995,829		$	930,369
Federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under repurchase agreements (included$6,214 and $4,060 at fair value)		285,444			276,644
Commercial paper		46,022			35,363
Other borrowed funds (included$10,616 and $9,931 at fair value)		36,704			34,325
Trading liabilities		141,393			146,166
Accounts payable and other liabilities (included the allowance for lending-related commitments of$688 and $717 and$146 and $236 at fair value)		171,638			170,330
Beneficial interests issued by consolidated variable interest entities (included$1,276 and $1,495 at fair value)		70,917			77,649
Long-term debt (included$37,915 and $38,839 at fair value)		269,616			270,653
Total liabilities(a)		2,017,563			1,941,499
Commitments and contingencies (see Notes 21 and 23 of this Form 10-Q)
Stockholders’ equity
Preferred stock ($1 par value; authorized 200,000,000 shares; issued780,000 shares)		7,800			7,800
Common stock ($1 par value; authorized 9,000,000,000 shares; issued4,104,933,895 shares)		4,105			4,105
Capital surplus		94,660			97,415
Retained earnings		78,342			73,998
Accumulated other comprehensive income/(loss)		712			1,001
Shares held in RSU Trust, at cost (1,191,389 and 1,192,712 shares)		(53	)		(53	)
Treasury stock, at cost (118,308,413 and 194,639,785 shares)		(4,968	)		(8,160	)
Total stockholders’ equity		180,598			176,106
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	2,198,161		$	2,117,605

(a) The following table presents information on assets and liabilities related to VIEs that are consolidated by the Firm at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010. The difference between total VIE assets and liabilities represents the Firm’s interests in those entities, which were eliminated in consolidation.

	March 31,		December 31,
	2011		2010
Assets
Trading assets	$	10,303	$	9,837
Loans		84,208		95,587
All other assets		3,341		3,494
Total assets	$	97,852	$	108,918
Liabilities
Beneficial interests issued by consolidated variable interest entities	$	70,917	$	77,649
All other liabilities		1,747		1,922
Total liabilities	$	72,664	$	79,571

The assets of the consolidated VIEs are used to settle the liabilities of those entities. The holders of the beneficial interests do not have recourse to the general credit of JPMorgan Chase. At both March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, the Firm provided limited program-wide credit enhancement of $2.0 billion related to its Firm-administered multi-seller conduits. For further discussion, see Note 15 on pages 141–149 of this Form 10-Q.

The Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (unaudited) are an integral part of these statements.

91

JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (UNAUDITED)

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except per-share data)	2011			2010
Preferred stock
Balance at January 1 and March 31	$	7,800		$	8,152
Common stock
Balance at January 1 and March 31		4,105			4,105
Capital surplus
Balance at January 1		97,415			97,982
Shares issued and commitments to issue common stock for employee stock-based compensation awards, and related tax effects		(2,755	)		(471	)
Other		—			(1,061	)
Balance at March 31		94,660			96,450
Retained earnings
Balance at January 1		73,998			62,481
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle		—			(4,391	)
Net income		5,555			3,326
Dividends declared:
Preferred stock		(157	)		(162	)
Common stock ($0.25 and $0.05 per share)		(1,054	)		(211	)
Balance at March 31		78,342			61,043
Accumulated other comprehensive income/(loss)
Balance at January 1		1,001			(91	)
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle		—			(129	)
Other comprehensive income/(loss)		(289	)		981
Balance at March 31		712			761
Shares held in RSU Trust, at cost
Balance at January 1 and March 31		(53	)		(68	)
Treasury stock, at cost
Balance at January 1		(8,160	)		(7,196	)
Purchase of treasury stock		(95	)		—
Reissuance from treasury stock		3,287			1,474
Balance at March 31		(4,968	)		(5,722	)
Total stockholders’ equity	$	180,598		$	164,721
Comprehensive income
Net income	$	5,555		$	3,326
Other comprehensive income/(loss)		(289	)		981
Comprehensive income	$	5,266		$	4,307

The Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (unaudited) are an integral part of these statements.

92

JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (UNAUDITED)

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011			2010
Operating activities
Net income	$	5,555		$	3,326
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash (used in)/provided by operating activities:
Provision for credit losses		1,169			7,010
Depreciation and amortization		1,057			961
Amortization of intangibles		217			243
Deferred tax benefit		(214	)		(40	)
Investment securities gains		(102	)		(610	)
Stock-based compensation		830			941
Originations and purchases of loans held-for-sale		(22,920	)		(6,503	)
Proceeds from sales, securitizations and paydowns of loans held-for-sale		21,773			7,806
Net change in:
Trading assets		(5,451	)		(5,979	)
Securities borrowed		4,596			(7,099	)
Accrued interest and accounts receivable		(9,051	)		16,645
Other assets		3,673			(4,746	)
Trading liabilities		(13,879	)		15,027
Accounts payable and other liabilities		2,396			(8,237	)
Other operating adjustments		4,372			(1,351	)
Net cash (used in)/provided by operating activities		(5,979	)		17,394
Investing activities
Net change in:
Deposits with banks		(59,164	)		4,282
Federal funds sold and securities purchased under resale agreements		5,080			(34,703	)
Held-to-maturity securities:
Proceeds		2			2
Available-for-sale securities:
Proceeds from maturities		20,591			37,323
Proceeds from sales		4,373			20,945
Purchases		(39,679	)		(57,647	)
Proceeds from sales and securitizations of loans held-for-investment		1,403			1,428
Other changes in loans, net		1,731			13,997
Net cash (used in) business acquisitions or dispositions		(15	)		(4	)
All other investing activities, net		(132	)		515
Net cash (used in) investing activities		(65,810	)		(13,862	)
Financing activities
Net change in:
Deposits		56,230			(19,927	)
Federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under repurchase agreements		8,835			33,749
Commercial paper and other borrowed funds		13,294			9,102
Beneficial interests issued by consolidated variable interest entities		223			(2,427	)
Proceeds from long-term borrowings and trust preferred capital debt securities		17,056			12,352
Payments of long-term borrowings and trust preferred capital debt securities		(27,250	)		(30,121	)
Excess tax benefits related to stock-based compensation		765			12
Treasury stock purchased		(95	)		—
Dividends paid		(246	)		(253	)
All other financing activities, net		(1,484	)		(464	)
Net cash provided by financing activities		67,328			2,023
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and due from banks		363			(339	)
Net (decrease)/increase in cash and due from banks		(4,098	)		5,216
Cash and due from banks at the beginning of the period		27,567			26,206
Cash and due from banks at the end of the period	$	23,469		$	31,422
Cash interest paid	$	3,618		$	2,850
Cash income taxes paid, net		716			2,228

Note: Effective January 1, 2010, the Firm adopted accounting guidance related to VIEs. Upon adoption of the guidance, the Firm consolidated noncash assets and liabilities of $87.7 billion and $92.2 billion, respectively.

The Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (unaudited) are an integral part of these statements.

93

See Glossary of Terms on pages174–177of this Form 10-Q for definitions of terms used throughout the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited)

NOTE 1 — BASIS OF PRESENTATION

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (“JPMorgan Chase” or the “Firm”), a financial holding company incorporated under Delaware law in 1968, is a leading global financial services firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the United States of America (“U.S.”), with operations in more than 60 countries. The Firm is a leader in investment banking, financial services for consumers and small business, commercial banking, financial transaction processing, asset management and private equity. For a discussion of the Firm’s business-segment information, see Note 24 on pages 169–171 of this Form 10-Q.

The accounting and financial reporting policies of JPMorgan Chase and its subsidiaries conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. (“U.S. GAAP”). Additionally, where applicable, the policies conform to the accounting and reporting guidelines prescribed by bank regulatory authorities.

The unaudited consolidated financial statements prepared in conformity with U.S. GAAP require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenue and expense, and the disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities. Actual results could be different from these estimates. In the opinion of management, all normal, recurring adjustments have been included for a fair statement of this interim financial information.

These unaudited consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements, and related notes thereto, included in JPMorgan Chase’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “2010 Annual Report”).

Certain amounts in prior periods have been reclassified to conform to the current presentation.

NOTE 2 — BUSINESS CHANGES AND DEVELOPMENTS

Increase in common stock dividend

On March 18, 2011, the Board of Directors raised the Firm’s quarterly common stock dividend from $0.05 to $0.25 per share, effective with the dividend paid on April 30, 2011, to shareholders of record on April 6, 2011.

Stock repurchases

On March 18, 2011, the Board of Directors approved a stock repurchase program that authorizes the repurchase of up to $15.0 billion of the Firm’s common stock, which supersedes a $10.0 billion repurchase program approved in 2007. The $15.0 billion authorization includes shares to be repurchased to offset issuances under the Firm’s employee stock-based incentive plans. The actual number of shares repurchased is subject to various factors, including market conditions, the Firm’s capital position, internal capital generation, and investment opportunities. The repurchase program does not include specific price targets or timetables, may be executed through open market purchases or privately negotiated transactions, or utilizing Rule 10b5-1 programs, and may be suspended at any time.

For additional information on repurchases see Item 2, Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds, on pages 181–182 of this Form 10-Q.

NOTE 3 — FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

For a further discussion of the Firm’s valuation methodologies for assets, liabilities and lending-related commitments measured at fair value and the fair value hierarchy, see Note 3 on pages 170–187 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

During the first three months of 2011, no changes were made to the Firm’s valuation models that had, or were expected to have, a material impact on the Firm’s Consolidated Balance Sheets or results of operations.

94

The following table presents the assets and liabilities measured at fair value as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, by major product category and fair value hierarchy.

Assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis

	Fair value hierarchy
							Netting			Total
March 31, 2011 (in millions)	Level 1(i)		Level 2(i)		Level 3(i)		adjustments			fair value
Federal funds sold and securities purchased under resale agreements	$	—	$	19,998	$	—	$	—		$	19,998
Securities borrowed		—		15,334		—		—			15,334
Trading assets:
Debt instruments:
Mortgage-backed securities:
U.S. government agencies(a)		27,862		9,422		191		—			37,475
Residential — nonagency		—		2,650		782		—			3,432
Commercial — nonagency		—		938		1,885		—			2,823
Total mortgage-backed securities		27,862		13,010		2,858		—			43,730
U.S. Treasury and government agencies(a)		19,282		8,829		—		—			28,111
Obligations of U.S. states and municipalities		1		11,418		1,971		—			13,390
Certificates of deposit, bankers’ acceptances and commercial paper		—		3,748		—		—			3,748
Non—U.S. government debt securities		30,359		47,780		640		—			78,779
Corporate debt securities		—		47,708		5,623		—			53,331
Loans(b)		—		21,759		12,490		—			34,249
Asset-backed securities		—		3,434		8,356		—			11,790
Total debt instruments		77,504		157,686		31,938		—			267,128
Equity securities		127,889		3,150		1,367		—			132,406
Physical commodities(c)		16,801		2,664		—		—			19,465
Other		2		3,157		246		—			3,405
Total debt and equity instruments(d)		222,196		166,657		33,551		—			422,404
Derivative receivables:
Interest rate		890		931,980		4,997		(906,685	)		31,182
Credit(e)		—		106,368		15,605		(113,947	)		8,026
Foreign exchange		1,331		155,845		4,126		(142,969	)		18,333
Equity		58		42,520		5,823		(40,043	)		8,358
Commodity		759		67,030		3,174		(58,118	)		12,845
Total derivative receivables(f)		3,038		1,303,743		33,725		(1,261,762	)		78,744
Total trading assets		225,234		1,470,400		67,276		(1,261,762	)		501,148
Available-for-sale securities:
Mortgage-backed securities:
U.S. government agencies(a)		103,692		18,162		—		—			121,854
Residential — nonagency		—		55,234		5		—			55,239
Commercial — nonagency		—		4,735		248		—			4,983
Total mortgage-backed securities		103,692		78,131		253		—			182,076
U.S. Treasury and government agencies(a)		565		6,490		—		—			7,055
Obligations of U.S. states and municipalities		27		11,155		256		—			11,438
Certificates of deposit		—		3,489		—		—			3,489
Non—U.S. government debt securities		18,386		14,864		—		—			33,250
Corporate debt securities		1		63,539		—		—			63,540
Asset-backed securities:
Credit card receivables		—		6,416		—		—			6,416
Collateralized loan obligations		—		127		14,741		—			14,868
Other		—		9,132		275		—			9,407
Equity securities		3,193		52		—		—			3,245
Total available-for-sale securities		125,864		193,395		15,525		—			334,784
Loans		—		434		1,371		—			1,805
Mortgage servicing rights		—		—		13,093		—			13,093
Other assets:
Private equity investments(g)		137		594		8,853		—			9,584
All other		5,334		132		4,560		—			10,026
Total other assets		5,471		726		13,413		—			19,610
Total assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis(h)	$	356,569	$	1,700,287	$	110,678	$	(1,261,762	)	$	905,772

95

	Fair value hierarchy
							Netting			Total
March 31, 2011 (in millions)	Level 1(i)		Level 2(i)		Level 3(i)		adjustments			fair value
Deposits	$	—	$	3,656	$	621	$	—		$	4,277
Federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under repurchase agreements		—		6,214		—		—			6,214
Other borrowed funds		—		9,143		1,473		—			10,616
Trading liabilities:
Debt and equity instruments(d)		61,666		18,192		173		—			80,031
Derivative payables:
Interest rate		924		895,092		2,527		(884,016	)		14,527
Credit(e)		—		107,089		11,232		(112,775	)		5,546
Foreign exchange		1,412		154,407		4,124		(141,393	)		18,550
Equity		74		39,320		7,969		(35,910	)		11,453
Commodity		759		64,276		4,039		(57,788	)		11,286
Total derivative payables(f)		3,169		1,260,184		29,891		(1,231,882	)		61,362
Total trading liabilities		64,835		1,278,376		30,064		(1,231,882	)		141,393
Accounts payable and other liabilities		—		—		146		—			146
Beneficial interests issued by consolidated VIEs		—		688		588		—			1,276
Long-term debt		—		24,888		13,027		—			37,915
Total liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis	$	64,835	$	1,322,965	$	45,919	$	(1,231,882	)	$	201,837

96

	Fair value hierarchy
							Netting			Total
December 31, 2010 (in millions)	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		adjustments			fair value
Federal funds sold and securities purchased under resale agreements	$	—	$	20,299	$	—	$	—		$	20,299
Securities borrowed		—		13,961		—		—			13,961
Trading assets:
Debt instruments:
Mortgage-backed securities:
U.S. government agencies(a)		36,813		10,738		174		—			47,725
Residential — nonagency		—		2,807		687		—			3,494
Commercial — nonagency		—		1,093		2,069		—			3,162
Total mortgage-backed securities		36,813		14,638		2,930		—			54,381
U.S. Treasury and government agencies(a)		12,863		9,026		—		—			21,889
Obligations of U.S. states and municipalities		—		11,715		2,257		—			13,972
Certificates of deposit, bankers’ acceptances and commercial paper		—		3,248		—		—			3,248
Non-U.S. government debt securities		31,127		38,482		697		—			70,306
Corporate debt securities		—		42,280		4,946		—			47,226
Loans(b)		—		21,736		13,144		—			34,880
Asset-backed securities		—		2,743		7,965		—			10,708
Total debt instruments		80,803		143,868		31,939		—			256,610
Equity securities		124,400		3,153		1,685		—			129,238
Physical commodities(c)		18,327		2,708		—		—			21,035
Other		—		2,275		253		—			2,528
Total debt and equity instruments(d)		223,530		152,004		33,877		—			409,411
Derivative receivables:
Interest rate		2,278		1,120,282		5,422		(1,095,427	)		32,555
Credit(e)		—		111,827		17,902		(122,004	)		7,725
Foreign exchange		1,121		163,114		4,236		(142,613	)		25,858
Equity		30		38,041		5,562		(39,429	)		4,204
Commodity		1,324		56,076		2,197		(49,458	)		10,139
Total derivative receivables(f)		4,753		1,489,340		35,319		(1,448,931	)		80,481
Total trading assets		228,283		1,641,344		69,196		(1,448,931	)		489,892
Available-for-sale securities:
Mortgage-backed securities:
U.S. government agencies(a)		104,736		15,490		—		—			120,226
Residential — nonagency		—		48,969		5		—			48,974
Commercial — nonagency		—		5,403		251		—			5,654
Total mortgage-backed securities		104,736		69,862		256		—			174,854
U.S. Treasury and government agencies(a)		522		10,826		—		—			11,348
Obligations of U.S. states and municipalities		31		11,272		256		—			11,559
Certificates of deposit		6		3,641		—		—			3,647
Non-U.S. government debt securities		13,107		7,670		—		—			20,777
Corporate debt securities		1		61,793		—		—			61,794
Asset-backed securities:
Credit card receivables		—		7,608		—		—			7,608
Collateralized loan obligations		—		128		13,470		—			13,598
Other		—		8,777		305		—			9,082
Equity securities		1,998		53		—		—			2,051
Total available-for-sale securities		120,401		181,630		14,287		—			316,318
Loans		—		510		1,466		—			1,976
Mortgage servicing rights		—		—		13,649		—			13,649
Other assets:
Private equity investments(g)		49		826		7,862		—			8,737
All other		5,093		192		4,179		—			9,464
Total other assets		5,142		1,018		12,041		—			18,201
Total assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis(h)	$	353,826	$	1,858,762	$	110,639	$	(1,448,931	)	$	874,296

97

	Fair value hierarchy
							Netting			Total
December 31, 2010 (in millions)	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		adjustments			fair value
Deposits	$	—	$	3,736	$	633	$	—		$	4,369
Federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under repurchase agreements		—		4,060		—		—			4,060
Other borrowed funds		—		8,959		972		—			9,931
Trading liabilities:
Debt and equity instruments(d)		58,468		18,425		54		—			76,947
Derivative payables:
Interest rate		2,625		1,085,233		2,586		(1,070,057	)		20,387
Credit(e)		—		112,545		12,516		(119,923	)		5,138
Foreign exchange		972		158,908		4,850		(139,715	)		25,015
Equity		22		39,046		7,331		(35,949	)		10,450
Commodity		862		54,611		3,002		(50,246	)		8,229
Total derivative payables(f)		4,481		1,450,343		30,285		(1,415,890	)		69,219
Total trading liabilities		62,949		1,468,768		30,339		(1,415,890	)		146,166
Accounts payable and other liabilities		—		—		236		—			236
Beneficial interests issued by consolidated VIEs		—		622		873		—			1,495
Long-term debt		—		25,795		13,044		—			38,839
Total liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis	$	62,949	$	1,511,940	$	46,097	$	(1,415,890	)	$	205,096

(a)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included total U.S. government-sponsored enterprise obligations of $126.3 billion and $137.3 billion respectively, which were predominantly mortgage-related.
(b)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included within trading loans were $18.9 billion and $22.7 billion, respectively, of residential first-lien mortgages and $2.5 billion and $2.6 billion, respectively, of commercial first-lien mortgages. Residential mortgage loans include conforming mortgage loans originated with the intent to sell to U.S. government agencies of $10.2 billion and $13.1 billion, respectively, and reverse mortgages of $3.9 billion and $4.0 billion, respectively.
(c)	Physical commodities inventories are generally accounted for at the lower of cost or fair value.
(d)	Balances reflect the reduction of securities owned (long positions) by the amount of securities sold but not yet purchased (short positions) when the long and short positions have identical Committee on Uniform Security Identification Procedures numbers (“CUSIPs”).
(e)	The level 3 amounts for derivative receivables and derivative payables related to credit primarily include structured credit derivative instruments. For further information on the classification of instruments within the valuation hierarchy, see Note 3 on pages 170–187 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.
(f)	As permitted under U.S. GAAP, the Firm has elected to net derivative receivables and derivative payables and the related cash collateral received and paid when a legally enforceable master netting agreement exists. For purposes of the tables above, the Firm does not reduce derivative receivables and derivative payables balances for this netting adjustment, either within or across the levels of the fair value hierarchy, as such netting is not relevant to a presentation based on the transparency of inputs to the valuation of an asset or liability. Therefore, the balances reported in the fair value hierarchy table are gross of any counterparty netting adjustments. However, if the Firm were to net such balances within level 3, the reduction in the level 3 derivative receivable and payable balances would be $12.1 billion and $12.7 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively; this is exclusive of the netting benefit associated with cash collateral, which would further reduce the level 3 balances.
(g)	Private equity instruments represent investments within the Corporate/Private Equity line of business. The cost basis of the private equity investment portfolio totaled $10.1 billion and $10.0 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.
(h)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, balances included investments valued at net asset values of $12.5 billion and $12.1 billion, respectively, of which $6.2 billion and $5.9 billion, respectively, were classified in level 1, $1.9 billion and $2.0 billion, respectively, in level 2 and $4.4 billion and $4.2 billion, respectively, in level 3.
(i)	For the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, the transfers between levels 1, 2 and 3, were not significant.

Changes in level 3 recurring fair value measurements

The following tables include a rollforward of the balance sheet amounts (including changes in fair value) for financial instruments classified by the Firm within level 3 of the fair value hierarchy for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010. When a determination is made to classify a financial instrument within level 3, the determination is based on the significance of the unobservable parameters to the overall fair value measurement. However, level 3 financial instruments typically include, in addition to the unobservable or level 3 components, observable components (that is, components that are actively quoted and can be validated to external sources); accordingly, the gains and losses in the table below include changes in fair value due in part to observable factors that are part of the valuation methodology. Also, the Firm risk-manages the observable components of level 3 financial instruments using securities and derivative positions that are classified within level 1 or 2 of the fair value hierarchy; as these level 1 and level 2 risk management instruments are not included below, the gains or losses in the following tables do not reflect the effect of the Firm’s risk management activities related to such level 3 instruments.

98

	Fair value measurements using significant unobservable inputs
																							Change in unrealized
				Total													Transfers						gains/(losses)
Three months ended	Fair value			realized/													into and/or			Fair value at			related to financial
March 31, 2011	at January 1,			unrealized													out of			March 31,			instruments held
(in millions)	2011			gains/(losses)			Purchases(g)		Sales			Issuances		Settlements			level 3(e)			2011			at March 31, 2011
Assets:
Trading assets:
Debt instruments:
Mortgage-backed securities:
U.S. government agencies	$	174		$	17		$	21	$	(21	)	$	—	$	—		$	—		$	191		$	(1	)
Residential — nonagency		687			71			259		(168	)		—		(67	)		—			782			27
Commercial — nonagency		2,069			16			346		(482	)		—		(64	)		—			1,885			(22	)
Total mortgage-backed securities		2,930			104			626		(671	)		—		(131	)		—			2,858			4
Obligations of U.S. states and municipalities		2,257			(14	)		284		(555	)		—		(1	)		—			1,971			(14	)
Non-U.S. government debt securities		697			49			130		(143	)		—		(19	)		(74	)		640			50
Corporate debt securities		4,946			32			1,629		(1,075	)		—		(6	)		97			5,623			34
Loans		13,144			131			888		(1,024	)		—		(729	)		80			12,490			12
Asset-backed securities		7,965			354			1,118		(1,057	)		—		(43	)		19			8,356			245
Total debt instruments		31,939			656			4,675		(4,525	)		—		(929	)		122			31,938			331
Equity securities		1,685			70			37		(74	)		—		(330	)		(21	)		1,367			83
Other		253			20			5		(1	)		—		(31	)		—			246			20
Total debt and equity instruments		33,877			746	(a)		4,717		(4,600	)		—		(1,290	)		101			33,551			434	(a)
Net derivative receivables:
Interest rate		2,836			519			128		(83	)		—		(915	)		(15	)		2,470			184
Credit		5,386			(853	)		1		—			—		(146	)		(15	)		4,373			(1,068	)
Foreign exchange		(614	)		61			25		—			—		482			48			2			69
Equity		(1,769	)		194			95		(330	)		—		(424	)		88			(2,146	)		69
Commodity		(805	)		595			86		(67	)		—		(424	)		(250	)		(865	)		209
Total net derivative receivables		5,034			516	(a)		335		(480	)		—		(1,427	)		(144	)		3,834			(537)	(a)
Available-for-sale securities:
Asset-backed securities		13,775			478			1,109		(4	)		—		(342	)		—			15,016			475
Other		512			9			—		(3	)		—		(9	)		—			509			7
Total available-for-sale securities		14,287			487	(b)		1,109		(7	)		—		(351	)		—			15,525			482	(b)
Loans		1,466			120	(a)		84		—			—		(283	)		(16	)		1,371			108	(a)
Mortgage servicing rights		13,649			(751)	(c)		758		—			—		(563	)		—			13,093			(751)	(c)
Other assets:
Private equity investments		7,862			905	(a)		328		(139	)		—		(103	)		—			8,853			845	(a)
All other		4,179			60	(d)		409		(3	)		—		(86	)		1			4,560			60	(d)
	Fair value measurements using significant unobservable inputs
																							Change in unrealized
				Total													Transfers						(gains)/losses
Three months ended	Fair value			realized/													into and/or			Fair value at			related to financial
March 31, 2011	at January 1,			unrealized													out of			March 31,			instruments held
(in millions)	2011			(gains)/losses			Purchases		Sales			Issuances		Settlements			level 3(e)			2011			at March 31, 2011
Liabilities(f):
Deposits	$	633		$	(4)	(a)	$	—	$	—		$	59	$	(66	)	$	(1	)	$	621		$	(4)	(a)
Other borrowed funds		972			58	(a)		—		—			529		(88	)		2			1,473			58	(a)
Trading liabilities:													—
Debt and equity instruments		54			—	(a)		—		119			—		—			—			173			—	(a)
Accounts payable and other liabilities		236			(37)	(d)		—		—			—		(53	)		—			146			4	(d)
Beneficial interests issued by consolidated VIEs		873			(6)	(a)		—		—			11		(290	)		—			588			(7)	(a)
Long-term debt		13,044			62	(a)	$	—	$	—		$	653	$	(971	)		239			13,027			258	(a)

99

	Fair value measurements using significant unobservable inputs
																Change in unrealized
				Total			Purchases,			Transfers						gains/(losses) related
Three months ended	Fair value at			realized/			issuances,			into and/or			Fair value at			to financial
March 31, 2010	January 1,			unrealized			settlements,			out of			March 31,			instruments held
(in millions)	2010			gains/(losses)			net			level 3(e)			2010			at March 31, 2010
Assets:
Trading assets:
Debt instruments:
Mortgage-backed securities:
U.S. government agencies	$	260		$	5		$	(50	)	$	—		$	215		$	(10	)
Residential — nonagency		1,115			16			(304	)		14			841			(11	)
Commercial — nonagency		1,770			36			(133	)		—			1,673			(36	)
Total mortgage-backed securities		3,145			57			(487	)		14			2,729			(57	)
Obligations of U.S. states and municipalities		1,971			(42	)		(96	)		142			1,975			(44	)
Non-U.S. government debt securities		734			(47	)		26			—			713			(46	)
Corporate debt securities		5,241			(278	)		(290	)		274			4,947			14
Loans		13,218			(331	)		2,986			(97	)		15,776			(369	)
Asset-backed securities		7,975			96			(69	)		76			8,078			19
Total debt instruments		32,284			(545	)		2,070			409			34,218			(483	)
Equity securities		1,956			(20	)		(232	)		12			1,716			73
Other		926			21			(600	)		78			425			19
Total debt and equity instruments		35,166			(544	)(a)		1,238			499			36,359			(391	)(a)
Net of derivative receivables:
Interest rate		2,040			420			(41	)		45			2,464			213
Credit		10,350			(604	)		(551	)		(9	)		9,186			(718	)
Foreign exchange		1,082			(380	)		(80	)		(293	)		329			(365	)
Equity		(1,791	)		263			(64	)		301			(1,291	)		247
Commodity		(329	)		(411	)		402			57			(281	)		(508	)
Total net derivative receivables		11,352			(712	)(a)		(334	)		101			10,407			(1,131	)(a)
Available-for-sale securities:
Asset-backed securities		12,732			(66	)		(95	)		—			12,571			(70	)
Other		461			(77	)		(22	)		1			363			15
Total available-for-sale securities		13,193			(143	)(b)		(117	)		1			12,934			(55	)(b)
Loans		990			1	(a)		157			(8	)		1,140			(18	)(a)
Mortgage servicing rights		15,531			(96	)(c)		96			—			15,531			(96	)(c)
Other assets:
Private equity investments		6,563			148	(a)		(61	)		(265	)		6,385			31	(a)
All other		9,521			(18	)(d)		(5,140	)		(11	)		4,352			(18	)(d)

	Fair value measurements using significant unobservable inputs
														Change in unrealized
			Total			Purchases,			Transfers					(gains)/losses
Three months ended	Fair value at		realized/			issuances,			into and/or			Fair value at		related to financial
March 31, 2010	January 1,		unrealized			settlements,			out of			March 31,		instruments held
(in millions)	2010		(gains)/losses			net			level 3(e)			2010		at March 31, 2010
Liabilities(f):
Deposits	$	476	$	(10	)(a)	$	(1	)	$	(25	)	$	440	$	(14	)(a)
Other borrowed funds		542		(52	)(a)		195			(233	)		452		(73	)(a)
Trading liabilities:
Debt and equity instruments		10		2	(a)		(3	)		23			32		2	(a)
Accounts payable and other liabilities		355		(23	)(d)		(4	)		—			328		(20	)(d)
Beneficial interests issued by consolidated VIEs		625		(7	)(a)		1,199			—			1,817		(7	)(a)
Long-term debt		18,287		(403	)(a)		(668	)		302			17,518		(402	)(a)

(a)	Predominantly reported in principal transactions revenue, except for changes in fair value for Retail Financial Services (“RFS”) mortgage loans originated with the intent to sell, which are reported in mortgage fees and related income.
(b)	Realized gains and losses on available-for-sale (“AFS”) securities, as well as other-than-temporary impairment losses that are recorded in earnings, are reported in securities gains. Unrealized gains and losses are reported in other comprehensive income (“OCI”). Realized gains and losses and foreign exchange remeasurement adjustments recorded in income on AFS securities were $330 million and $79

100

	million for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Unrealized gains and losses reported on AFS securities in OCI were $156 million and $65 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
(c)	Changes in fair value for RFS mortgage servicing rights are reported in mortgage fees and related income.
(d)	Predominantly reported in other income.
(e)	All transfers into and/or out of level 3 are assumed to occur at the beginning of the reporting period.
(f)	Level 3 liabilities as a percentage of total Firm liabilities accounted for at fair value (including liabilities measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis) were 23% and 22% at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.
(g)	Loan originations are included in purchases.

Assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis

Certain assets, liabilities and unfunded lending-related commitments are measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis; that is, they are not measured at fair value on an ongoing basis but are subject to fair value adjustments only in certain circumstances (for example, when there is evidence of impairment). The following tables present the assets and liabilities carried on the Consolidated Balance Sheets by caption and level within the valuation hierarchy as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, for which a nonrecurring change in fair value has been recorded during the reporting period.

	Fair value hierarchy
March 31, 2011 (in millions)	Level 1(d)		Level 2(d)		Level 3(d)		Total fair value
Loans retained(a)	$	—	$	1,418	$	625	$	2,043
Loans held-for-sale(b)		—		457		4,554		5,011
Total loans		—		1,875		5,179		7,054
Other real estate owned		—		58		251		309
Other assets		—		—		1		1
Total other assets		—		58		252		310
Total assets at fair value on a nonrecurring basis	$	—	$	1,933	$	5,431	$	7,364
Accounts payable and other liabilities(c)	$	—	$	36	$	17	$	53
Total liabilities at fair value on a nonrecurring basis	$	—	$	36	$	17	$	53

	Fair value hierarchy
December 31, 2010 (in millions)	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total fair value
Loans retained(a)	$	—	$	5,484	$	690	$	6,174
Loans held-for-sale(b)		—		312		3,200		3,512
Total loans		—		5,796		3,890		9,686
Other real estate owned		—		78		311		389
Other assets		—		—		2		2
Total other assets		—		78		313		391
Total assets at fair value on a nonrecurring basis	$	—	$	5,874	$	4,203	$	10,077
Accounts payable and other liabilities(c)	$	—	$	53	$	18	$	71
Total liabilities at fair value on a nonrecurring basis	$	—	$	53	$	18	$	71

(a)	Reflects mortgage, home equity and other loans where the carrying value is based on the fair value of the underlying collateral.
(b)	Predominantly includes credit card loans at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010. Loans held-for-sale are carried on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at the lower of cost or fair value.
(c)	Represents, at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, fair value adjustments associated with $828 million and $517 million, respectively, of unfunded held-for-sale lending-related commitments within the leveraged lending portfolio.
(d)	For the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, the transfers between levels 1, 2 and 3 were not significant.

The method used to estimate the fair value of impaired collateral-dependent loans, and other loans where the carrying value is based on the fair value of the underlying collateral (e.g., residential mortgage loans charged off in accordance with regulatory guidance), depends on the type of collateral (e.g., securities, real estate, nonfinancial assets) underlying the loan. Fair value of the collateral is estimated based on quoted market prices, broker quotes or independent appraisals, or by using a discounted cash flow model. For further information, see Note 14 on pages 139–140 of this Form 10-Q.

101

Nonrecurring fair value changes

The following table presents the total change in value of assets and liabilities for which a fair value adjustment has been included in the Consolidated Statements of Income for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, related to financial instruments held at those dates.

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011			2010
Loans retained	$	(690	)	$	(1,338	)
Loans held-for-sale		5			44
Total loans		(685	)		(1,294	)
Other assets		(3	)		4
Accounts payable and other liabilities		6			7
Total nonrecurring fair value gains/(losses)	$	(682	)	$	(1,283	)

Level 3 analysis

Level 3 assets at March 31, 2011, predominantly include derivative receivables, mortgage servicing rights (“MSRs”), collateralized loan obligations (“CLOs”) held within the AFS securities portfolio, trading loans, asset-backed trading securities and private equity investments.

• Derivative receivables included $33.7 billion of interest rate, credit, foreign exchange, equity and commodity contracts classified within level 3 at March 31, 2011. Included within this balance was $9.8 billion of structured credit derivatives with corporate debt underlying. In assessing the Firm’s risk exposure to structured credit derivatives, the Firm believes consideration should also be given to derivative liabilities with similar, and therefore offsetting, risk profiles. At March 31, 2010, $5.1 billion of level 3 derivative liabilities had risk characteristics similar to those of the derivative receivable assets classified in level 3.

• Mortgage servicing rights represent the fair value of future cash flows for performing specified mortgage servicing activities for others (predominantly with respect to residential mortgage loans). For a further description of the MSR asset, the interest rate risk management and valuation methodology used for MSRs, including valuation assumptions and sensitivities, see Note 17 on pages 260–263 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report and Note 16 on pages 149–152 of this Form 10-Q.

• CLOs totaling $14.7 billion were securities backed by corporate loans held in the Firm’s AFS securities portfolio. Substantially all of these securities are rated “AAA,” “AA” and “A” and had an average credit enhancement of 30%. Credit enhancement in CLOs is primarily in the form of subordination, which is a form of structural credit enhancement where realized losses associated with assets held by the issuing vehicle are allocated to the various tranches of securities issued by the vehicle considering their relative seniority. For further discussion, see Note 11 on pages 116–120 of this Form 10-Q.

• Trading loans totaling $12.5 billion included $6.5 billion of residential mortgage whole loans and commercial mortgage loans for which there is limited price transparency; and $3.9 billion of reverse mortgages for which the principal risk sensitivities are mortality risk and home prices. The fair value of the commercial and residential mortgage loans is estimated by projecting expected cash flows, considering relevant borrower-specific and market factors, and discounting those cash flows at a rate reflecting current market liquidity. Loans are partially hedged by level 2 instruments, including credit default swaps and interest rate derivatives, which are observable and liquid.

Consolidated Balance Sheets changes

Level 3 assets (including assets measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis) were 5% of total Firm assets at March 31, 2011. The following describes significant changes to level 3 assets during the quarter.

102

For the three months ended March 31, 2011

Level 3 assets were $116.1 billion at March 31, 2011, reflecting an increase of $1.3 billion largely by:

• $1.4 billion increase in nonrecurring loans held-for-sale, largely driven by an increase in credit card balances;

• $1.3 billion increase in asset-backed AFS securities, predominantly driven by purchases of new issuance CLOs;

• $1.0 billion increase in private equity, largely driven by net increases in investment valuations in the portfolio and incremental new investments; and

• $1.6 billion decrease in derivative receivables, largely due to tightening of credit spreads and unwinds.

Gains and Losses

Included in the tables for the three months ended March 31, 2011

• $905 million gain in private equity, largely driven by net increases in investment valuations in the portfolio.

Included in the tables for the three months ended March 31, 2010

• $1.4 billion of net losses and $493 million of net gains on assets and liabilities, respectively, measured at fair value on a recurring basis, none of which were individually significant.

Credit adjustments

When determining the fair value of an instrument, it may be necessary to record a valuation adjustment to arrive at an exit price under U.S. GAAP. Valuation adjustments include, but are not limited to, amounts to reflect counterparty credit quality and the Firm’s own creditworthiness. The market’s view of the Firm’s credit quality is reflected in credit spreads observed in the credit default swap market. For a detailed discussion of the valuation adjustments the Firm considers, see Note 3 on pages 170–187 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

The following table provides the credit adjustments, excluding the effect of any hedging activity, reflected within the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of the dates indicated.

(in millions)	March 31, 2011			December 31, 2010
Derivative receivables balance	$	78,744		$	80,481
Derivatives CVA(a)		(3,827	)		(4,362	)
Derivative payables balance		61,362			69,219
Derivatives DVA		(813	)		(882	)
Structured notes balance(b)(c)		52,808			53,139
Structured notes DVA		(1,176	)		(1,153	)

(a)	Derivatives credit valuation adjustments (“CVA”), gross of hedges, includes results managed by credit portfolio and other lines of business within the Investment Bank (“IB”).
(b)	Structured notes are recorded within long-term debt, other borrowed funds or deposits on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, based on the tenor and legal form of the note.
(c)	Structured notes are measured at fair value based on the Firm’s election under the fair value option. For further information on these elections, see Note 4 on pages 105–106 of this Form 10-Q.

The following table provides the impact of credit adjustments on earnings in the respective periods, excluding the effect of any hedging activity.

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011			2010
Credit adjustments:
Derivative CVA(a)	$	535		$	156
Derivative DVA		(69	)		(106	)
Structured note DVA(b)		23			108

(a)	Derivatives CVA, gross of hedges, includes results managed by credit portfolio and other lines of business within IB.
(b)	Structured notes are measured at fair value based on the Firm’s election under the fair value option. For further information on these elections, see Note 4 on pages 105–106 of this Form 10-Q.

Additional disclosures about the fair value of financial instruments (including financial instruments not carried at fair value)

The following table presents the carrying values and estimated fair values of financial assets and liabilities. For additional information regarding the financial instruments within the scope of this disclosure, and the methods and significant assumptions used to estimate their fair value, see Note 3 on pages 170–187 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

103

The following table presents the carrying values and estimated fair values of financial assets and liabilities.

	March 31, 2011							December 31, 2010
	Carrying		Estimated		Appreciation/			Carrying		Estimated		Appreciation/
(in billions)	value		fair value		(depreciation)			value		fair value		(depreciation)
Financial assets
Assets for which fair value approximates carrying value	$	104.3	$	104.3	$	—		$	49.2	$	49.2	$	—
Accrued interest and accounts receivable		79.2		79.2		—			70.1		70.1		—
Federal funds sold and securities purchased under resale agreements (included $20.0 and $20.3 at fair value)		217.4		217.4		—			222.6		222.6		—
Securities borrowed (included $15.3 and $14.0 at fair value)		119.0		119.0		—			123.6		123.6		—
Trading assets		501.1		501.1		—			489.9		489.9		—
Securities (included $334.8 and $316.3 at fair value)		334.8		334.8		—			316.3		316.3		—
Loans (included $1.8 and $2.0 at fair value)(a)		656.2		658.8		2.6			660.7		663.5		2.8
Mortgage servicing rights at fair value		13.1		13.1		—			13.6		13.6		—
Other (included $19.6 and $18.2 at fair value)		66.8		67.1		0.3			64.9		65.0		0.1
Total financial assets	$	2,091.9	$	2,094.8	$	2.9		$	2,010.9	$	2,013.8	$	2.9
Financial liabilities
Deposits (included $4.3 and $4.4 at fair value)	$	995.8	$	996.8	$	(1.0	)	$	930.4	$	931.5	$	(1.1	)
Federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under repurchase agreements (included $6.2 and $4.1 at fair value)		285.4		285.4		—			276.6		276.6		—
Commercial paper		46.0		46.0		—			35.4		35.4		—
Other borrowed funds (included $10.6 and $9.9 at fair value)(b)		36.7		36.7		—			34.3		34.3		—
Trading liabilities		141.4		141.4		—			146.2		146.2		—
Accounts payable and other liabilities (included $0.1 and $0.2 at fair value)		142.6		142.5		0.1			138.2		138.2		—
Beneficial interests issued by consolidated VIEs (included $1.3 and $1.5 at fair value)		70.9		71.2		(0.3	)		77.6		77.9		(0.3	)
Long-term debt and junior subordinated deferrable interest debentures (included $37.9 and $38.8 at fair value)(b)		269.6		270.8		(1.2	)		270.7		271.9		(1.2	)
Total financial liabilities	$	1,988.4	$	1,990.8	$	(2.4	)	$	1,909.4	$	1,912.0	$	(2.6	)
Net appreciation					$	0.5						$	0.3

(a)

Fair value is typically estimated using a discounted cash flow model that incorporates the characteristics of the underlying loans (including principal, contractual interest rate and contractual fees) and other key inputs, including expected lifetime credit losses, interest rates, prepayment rates, and primary origination or secondary market spreads. For certain loans, the fair value is measured based upon the value of the underlying collateral. The difference between the estimated fair value and carrying value of a financial asset or liability is the result of the different methodologies used to determine fair value as compared to carrying value. For example, credit losses are estimated for a financial asset’s remaining life in a fair value calculation but are estimated for a loss emergence period in a loan loss reserve calculation; future loan income (interest and fees) is incorporated in a fair value calculation but is generally not considered in a loan loss reserve calculation. For a further discussion of the Firm’s methodologies for estimating the fair value of loans and lending-related commitments, see Note 3 pages 171–173 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

(b)

Effective January 1, 2011, $23.0 billion of long-term advances from Federal Home Loan Banks (“FHLBs”) were reclassified from other borrowed funds to long-term debt. The prior-year period has been revised to conform with the current presentation.

The majority of the Firm��s unfunded lending-related commitments are not carried at fair value on a recurring basis on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, nor are they actively traded. The carrying value and estimated fair value of the Firm’s wholesale lending–related commitments were as follows for the periods indicated.

	March 31, 2011				December 31, 2010
	Carrying		Estimated		Carrying		Estimated
(in billions)	value(a)		fair value		value(a)		fair value
Wholesale lending—related commitments	$	0.7	$	1.0	$	0.7	$	0.9

(a) Represents the allowance for wholesale unfunded lending-related commitments. Excludes the current carrying values of the guarantee liability and the offsetting asset each recognized at fair value at the inception of guarantees.

The Firm does not estimate the fair value of consumer lending—related commitments. In many cases, the Firm can reduce or cancel these commitments by providing the borrower prior notice or, in some cases, without notice as permitted by law. For a further discussion of the valuation of lending-related commitments, see Note 3 on pages 171–173 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

104

Trading assets and liabilities — average balances
Average trading assets and liabilities were as follows for the periods indicated.

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010
Trading assets — debt and equity instruments(a)	$	417,463	$	331,763
Trading assets — derivative receivables		85,437		78,683
Trading liabilities — debt and equity instruments(a)(b)		82,919		70,882
Trading liabilities — derivative payables		71,288		59,053

(a)	Balances reflect the reduction of securities owned (long positions) by the amount of securities sold, but not yet purchased (short positions) when the long and short positions have identical CUSIPs.
(b)	Primarily represent securities sold, not yet purchased.

NOTE 4 — FAIR VALUE OPTION

For a discussion of the primary financial instruments for which the fair value option was previously elected, including the basis for those elections and the determination of instrument-specific credit risk, where relevant, see Note 4 on pages 187–189 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Changes in fair value under the fair value option election

The following table presents the changes in fair value included in the Consolidated Statements of Income for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, for items for which the fair value election was made. The profit and loss information presented below only includes the financial instruments that were elected to be measured at fair value; related risk management instruments, which are required to be measured at fair value, are not included in the table.

	Three months ended March 31,
	2011									2010
							Total changes									Total changes
	Principal			Other			in fair value			Principal			Other			in fair value
(in millions)	transactions			Income			recorded			transactions			income			recorded
Federal funds sold and securities purchased under resale agreements	$	(118	)	$	—		$	(118	)	$	19		$	—		$	19
Securities borrowed		9			—			9			12			—			12
Trading assets:
Debt and equity instruments, excluding loans		164			3	(c)		167			156			1	(c)		157
Loans reported as trading assets:
Changes in instrument-specific credit risk		480			—			480			409			(6	)(c)		403
Other changes in fair value		125			723	(c)		848			(384	)		755	(c)		371
Loans:
Changes in instrument-specific credit risk		(6	)		—			(6	)		47			—			47
Other changes in fair value		143			—			143			(27	)		—			(27	)
Other assets		—			—			—			—			(53	)(d)		(53	)
Deposits(a)		(17	)		—			(17	)		(189	)		—			(189	)
Federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under repurchase agreements		35			—			35			(9	)		—			(9	)
Other borrowed funds(a)		217			—			217			74			—			74
Trading liabilities		(3	)		—			(3	)		(3	)		—			(3	)
Beneficial interests issued by consolidated VIEs		(34	)		—			(34	)		46			—			46
Other liabilities		(3	)		(2)	(d)		(5	)		23			—			23
Long-term debt:
Changes in instrument-specific credit risk(a)		54			—			54			51			—			51
Other changes in fair value(b)		(24	)		—			(24	)		226			—			226

(a)	Total changes in instrument-specific credit risk related to structured notes were $23 million and $108 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Those totals include adjustments for structured notes classified within deposits and other borrowed funds, as well as long-term debt.
(b)	Structured notes are debt instruments with embedded derivatives that are tailored to meet a client’s need. The embedded derivative is the primary driver of risk. Although the risk associated with the structured notes is actively managed, the gains reported in this table do not include the income statement impact of such risk management instruments.
(c)	Reported in mortgage fees and related income.
(d)	Reported in other income.

105

Difference between aggregate fair value and aggregate remaining contractual principal balance outstanding

The following table reflects the difference between the aggregate fair value and the aggregate remaining contractual principal balance outstanding as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, for , long-term debt and long-term beneficial interests for which the fair value option has been elected.

	March 31, 2011								December 31, 2010
						Fair value								Fair value
						over/(under)								over/(under)
	Contractual					contractual			Contractual					contractual
	principal					principal			principal					principal
(in millions)	outstanding			Fair value		outstanding			outstanding			Fair value		outstanding
Loans
Performing 90 days or more past due
Loans reported as trading assets	$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—
Loans		—			—		—			—			—		—
Nonaccrual Loans
Loans reported as trading assets		5,632			1,509		(4,123	)		5,246			1,239		(4,007	)
Loans		892			60		(832	)		927			132		(795	)
Subtotal		6,524			1,569		(4,955	)		6,173			1,371		(4,802	)
All other performing loans
Loans reported as trading assets		38,107			32,740		(5,367	)		39,490			33,641		(5,849	)
Loans		2,246			1,275		(971	)		2,496			1,434		(1,062	)
Total loans	$	46,877		$	35,584	$	(11,293	)	$	48,159		$	36,446	$	(11,713	)
Long-term debt
Principal—protected debt	$	19,820	(b)	$	20,207	$	387		$	20,761	(b)	$	21,315	$	554
Nonprincipal—protected debt(a)	NA				17,708	NA			NA				17,524	NA
Total long-term debt	NA				37,915	NA			NA			$	38,839	NA
Long-term beneficial interests
Principal—protected debt	$	—		$	—	$	—		$	49		$	49	$	—
Nonprincipal—protected debt(a)	NA				1,276	NA			NA				1,446	NA
Total long-term beneficial interests	NA			$	1,276	NA			NA			$	1,495	NA

(a)

Remaining contractual principal is not applicable to nonprincipal-protected notes. Unlike principal-protected notes, for which the Firm is obligated to return a stated amount of principal at the maturity of the note, nonprincipal-protected notes do not obligate the Firm to return a stated amount of principal at maturity, but to return an amount based on the performance of an underlying variable or derivative feature embedded in the note.

(b)

Where the Firm issues principal-protected zero-coupon or discount notes, the balance reflected as the remaining contractual principal is the final principal payment at maturity.

At both March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, the contractual amount of letters of credit for which the fair value option elected was $3.8 billion, with a corresponding fair value of $6 million. For further information regarding off-balance sheet lending-related financial instruments, see Note 30 on pages 275–280 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

106

NOTE 5 — DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS

For a further discussion of the Firm’s use and accounting policies regarding derivative instruments, see Note 6 on pages 191–199 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Notional amount of derivative contracts

The following table summarizes the notional amount of derivative contracts outstanding as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010.

	Notional amounts(b)
(in billions)	March 31, 2011		December 31, 2010
Interest rate contracts
Swaps	$	45,632	$	46,299
Futures and forwards		9,408		9,298
Written options		4,264		4,075
Purchased options		4,500		3,968
Total interest rate contracts		63,804		63,640
Credit derivatives(a)		5,845		5,472
Foreign exchange contracts
Cross-currency swaps		2,761		2,568
Spot, futures and forwards		4,698		3,893
Written options		709		674
Purchased options		695		649
Total foreign exchange contracts		8,863		7,784
Equity contracts
Swaps		126		116
Futures and forwards		41		49
Written options		493		430
Purchased options		442		377
Total equity contracts		1,102		972
Commodity contracts
Swaps		431		349
Spot, futures and forwards		213		170
Written options		288		264
Purchased options		286		254
Total commodity contracts		1,218		1,037
Total derivative notional amounts	$	80,832	$	78,905

(a)	Primarily consists of credit default swaps. For more information on volumes and types of credit derivative contracts, see the Credit derivatives discussion on pages 112–113 of this Note.
(b)	Represents the sum of gross long and gross short third-party notional derivative contracts.

While the notional amounts disclosed above give an indication of the volume of the Firm’s derivatives activity, the notional amounts significantly exceed, in the Firm’s view, the possible losses that could arise from such transactions. For most derivative transactions, the notional amount is not exchanged; it is used simply as a reference to calculate payments.

107

Impact of derivatives on the Consolidated Balance Sheets

The following tables summarize information on derivative fair values that are reflected on the Firm’s Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, by accounting designation (e.g., whether the derivatives were designated as hedges or not) and contract type.

Free-standing derivatives^(a)

	Derivative receivables							Derivative payables
March 31, 2011	Not designated		Designated		Total derivative			Not designated		Designated		Total derivative
(in millions)	as hedges		as hedges		receivables			as hedges		as hedges		payables
Trading assets and liabilities
Interest rate	$	932,405	$	5,462	$	937,867		$	897,665	$	878	$	898,543
Credit		121,973		—		121,973			118,321		—		118,321
Foreign exchange(b)		158,305		2,997		161,302			158,890		1,053		159,943
Equity		48,401		—		48,401			47,363		—		47,363
Commodity		70,850		113		70,963			66,896		2,178		69,074
Gross fair value of trading assets and liabilities	$	1,331,934	$	8,572	$	1,340,506		$	1,289,135	$	4,109	$	1,293,244
Netting adjustment(c)						(1,261,762	)						(1,231,882	)
Carrying value of derivative trading assets and trading liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets					$	78,744						$	61,362

	Derivative receivables							Derivative payables
December 31, 2010	Not designated		Designated		Total derivative			Not designated		Designated			Total derivative
(in millions)	as hedges		as hedges		receivables			as hedges		as hedges			payables
Trading assets and liabilities
Interest rate	$	1,121,703	$	6,279	$	1,127,982		$	1,089,604	$	840		$	1,090,444
Credit		129,729		—		129,729			125,061		—			125,061
Foreign exchange(b)		165,240		3,231		168,471			163,671		1,059			164,730
Equity		43,633		—		43,633			46,399		—			46,399
Commodity		59,573		24		59,597			56,397		2,078	(d)		58,475
Gross fair value of trading assets and liabilities	$	1,519,878	$	9,534	$	1,529,412		$	1,481,132	$	3,977		$	1,485,109
Netting adjustment(c)						(1,448,931	)							(1,415,890	)
Carrying value of derivative trading assets and trading liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets					$	80,481							$	69,219

(a)	Excludes structured notes for which the fair value option has been elected. See Note 4 on pages 105–106 of this Form 10-Q and Note 4 on pages 187–189 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report for further information.
(b)	Excludes $20 million and $21 million of foreign currency-denominated debt designated as a net investment hedge at March 31, 2011, and December, 31, 2010, respectively.
(c)	U.S. GAAP permits the netting of derivative receivables and payables, and the related cash collateral received and paid when a legally enforceable master netting agreement exists between the Firm and a derivative counterparty.
(d)	Excludes $1.0 billion related to commodity derivatives that are embedded in a debt instrument and used as fair value hedging instruments that are recorded in the line item of the host contract (other borrowed funds) for December 31, 2010.

Derivative receivables and payables fair value

The following table summarizes the fair values of derivative receivables and payables, including those designated as hedges by contract type after netting adjustments as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010.

	Trading assets-Derivative receivables				Trading liabilities-Derivative payables
(in millions)	March 31, 2011		December 31, 2010		March 31, 2011		December 31, 2010
Contract type
Interest rate	$	31,182	$	32,555	$	14,527	$	20,387
Credit		8,026		7,725		5,546		5,138
Foreign exchange		18,333		25,858		18,550		25,015
Equity		8,358		4,204		11,453		10,450
Commodity		12,845		10,139		11,286		8,229
Total	$	78,744	$	80,481	$	61,362	$	69,219

108

Impact of derivatives on the Consolidated Statements of Income

Fair value hedge gains and losses

The following tables present derivative instruments, by contract type, used in fair value hedge accounting relationships, as well as pretax gains/(losses) recorded on such derivatives and the related hedged items for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The Firm includes gains/(losses) on the hedging derivative and the related hedged item in the same line item in the Consolidated Statements of Income.

	Gains/(losses) recorded in income									Income statement impact due to:
Three months ended							Total income
March 31, 2011							statement			Hedge			Excluded
(in millions)	Derivatives			Hedged items			impact			ineffectiveness(d)			components(e)
Contract type
Interest rate(a)	$	(718	)	$	800		$	82		$	(9	)	$	91
Foreign exchange(b)		(3,206)	(f)		3,124			(82	)		—			(82	)
Commodity(c)		(73	)		433			360			(1	)		361
Total	$	(3,997	)	$	4,357		$	360		$	(10	)	$	370
	Gains/(losses) recorded in income									Income statement impact due to:
Three months ended							Total income
March 31, 2010							statement			Hedge			Excluded
(in millions)	Derivatives			Hedged items			impact			ineffectiveness(d)			components(e)
Contract type
Interest rate(a)	$	632		$	(498	)	$	134		$	28		$	106
Foreign exchange(b)		1,647	(f)		(1,657	)		(10	)		—			(10	)
Commodity(c)		(455	)		396			(59	)		—			(59	)
Total	$	1,824		$	(1,759	)	$	65		$	28		$	37

(a)	Primarily consists of hedges of the benchmark (e.g., London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”)) interest rate risk of fixed-rate long-term debt and AFS securities. Gains and losses were recorded in net interest income.
(b)	Primarily consists of hedges of the foreign currency risk of long-term debt and AFS securities for changes in spot foreign currency rates. Gains and losses related to the derivatives and the hedged items, due to changes in spot foreign currency rates, were recorded in principal transactions revenue.
(c)	Consists of overall fair value hedges of certain commodities inventories. Gains and losses were recorded in principal transactions revenue.
(d)	Hedge ineffectiveness is the amount by which the gain or loss on the designated derivative instrument does not exactly offset the gain or loss on the hedged item attributable to the hedged risk.
(e)	Certain components of hedging derivatives are permitted to be excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness, such as forward points on a futures or forward contract. Amounts related to excluded components are recorded in current-period income.
(f)	For the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, included $(3.2) billion and $1.7 billion, respectively, of revenue related to certain foreign exchange trading derivatives designated as fair value hedging instruments.

109

Cash flow hedge gains and losses

The following tables present derivative instruments, by contract type, used in cash flow hedge accounting relationships, and the pretax gains/(losses) recorded on such derivatives, for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The Firm includes the gain/(loss) on the hedging derivative in the same line item as the offsetting change in cash flows on the hedged item in the Consolidated Statements of Income.

	Gains/(losses) recorded in income and other comprehensive income (“OCI”)/(loss)(c)
			Hedge
	Derivatives —		ineffectiveness
	effective portion		recorded directly				Derivatives —			Total change
Three months ended	reclassified from		in		Total income		effective portion			in OCI
March 31, 2011 (in millions)	AOCI to income		income(d)		statement impact		recorded in OCI			for period
Contract type
Interest rate(a)	$	94	$	3	$	97	$	(31	)	$	(125	)
Foreign exchange(b)		22		—		22		18			(4	)
Total	$	116	$	3	$	119	$	(13	)	$	(129	)

	Gains/(losses) recorded in income and other comprehensive income/(loss)(c)
				Hedge
	Derivatives —			ineffectiveness
	effective portion			recorded directly					Derivatives —			Total change
Three months ended	reclassified from			in		Total income			effective portion			in OCI
March 31, 2010 (in millions)	AOCI to income			income(d)		statement impact			recorded in OCI			for period
Contract type
Interest rate(a)	$	49		$	3	$	52		$	251		$	202
Foreign exchange(b)		(52	)		—		(52	)		(112	)		(60	)
Total	$	(3	)	$	3	$	—		$	139		$	142

(a)	Primarily consists of benchmark interest rate hedges of LIBOR-indexed floating-rate assets and floating-rate liabilities. Gains and losses were recorded in net interest income.
(b)	Primarily consists of hedges of the foreign currency risk of non-U.S. dollar-denominated revenue and expense. The income statement classification of gains and losses follows the hedged item - primarily net interest income, compensation expense and other expense.
(c)	The Firm did not experience any forecasted transactions that failed to occur for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
(d)	Hedge ineffectiveness is the amount by which the cumulative gain or loss on the designated derivative instrument exceeds the present value of the cumulative expected change in cash flows on the hedged item attributable to the hedged risk.

Over the next 12 months, the Firm expects that $159 million (after-tax) of net losses recorded in AOCI at March 31, 2011, related to cash flow hedges will be recognized in income. The maximum length of time over which forecasted transactions are hedged is 10 years, and such transactions primarily relate to core lending and borrowing activities.

Net investment hedge gains and losses

The following tables present hedging instruments, by contract type, that were used in net investment hedge accounting relationships, and the pretax gains/(losses) recorded on such instruments for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010.

	Gains/(losses) recorded in income and other comprehensive income/(loss)
	2011						2010
	Excluded components						Excluded components
Three months ended March 31,	recorded directly			Effective portion			recorded directly			Effective portion
(in millions)	in income(a)			recorded in OCI			in income(a)			recorded in OCI
Contract type
Foreign exchange derivatives	$	(71	)	$	(390	)	$	(41	)	$	285
Foreign currency denominated debt		—			—			—			41
Total	$	(71	)	$	(390	)	$	(41	)	$	326

(a) Certain components of hedging derivatives are permitted to be excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness, such as forward points on a futures or forward contract. Amounts related to excluded components are recorded in current-period income. There was no ineffectiveness for net investment hedge accounting relationships during the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010.

110

Risk management derivatives gains and losses (not designated as hedging instruments)

The following table presents nontrading derivatives, by contract type, that were not designated in hedge relationships, and the pretax gains/(losses) recorded on such derivatives for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010. These derivatives are risk management instruments used to mitigate or transform the market risk exposures arising from banking activities other than trading activities, which are discussed separately below.

Three months ended March 31,	Derivatives gains/(losses) recorded in income
(in millions)	2011			2010
Contract type
Interest rate(a)	$	75		$	140
Credit(b)		(58	)		(119	)
Foreign exchange(c)		(8	)		(21	)
Commodity(b)		—			(23	)
Total	$	9		$	(23	)

(a)	Gains and losses were recorded in principal transactions revenue, mortgage fees and related income, and net interest income.
(b)	Gains and losses were recorded in principal transactions revenue.
(c)	Gains and losses were recorded in principal transactions revenue and net interest income.

Trading derivative gains and losses

The following table presents trading derivatives gains and losses, by contract type, that are recorded in principal transactions revenue in the Consolidated Statements of Income for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010. The Firm has elected to present derivative gains and losses related to its trading activities together with the cash instruments with which they are risk managed.

Three months ended March 31,	Gains/(losses) recorded in principal transactions revenue
(in millions)	2011		2010
Type of instrument
Interest rate	$	367	$	107
Credit		1,209		2,125
Foreign exchange(a)		590		627
Equity		828		822
Commodity		163		413
Total	$	3,157	$	4,094

(a) In 2010, the reporting of trading gains and losses was enhanced to include trading gains and losses related to certain trading derivatives designated as fair value hedging instruments. Prior period amounts have been revised to conform to the current presentation.

Credit risk, liquidity risk and credit-related contingent features

The aggregate fair value of net derivative payables that contain contingent collateral or termination features triggered upon a downgrade was $16.3 billion at March 31, 2011, for which the Firm has posted collateral of $11.4 billion in the normal course of business. At March 31, 2011, the impact of a single-notch and two-notch ratings downgrade to JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its subsidiaries, primarily JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (“JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.”), would have required $1.9 billion and $3.2 billion, respectively, of additional collateral to be posted by the Firm. In addition, at March 31, 2011, the impact of single-notch and two-notch ratings downgrades to JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its subsidiaries, primarily JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., related to contracts with termination triggers would have required the Firm to settle trades with a fair value of $382 million and $1.1 billion, respectively.

The following tables show the carrying value of derivative receivables and payables after netting adjustments and collateral received as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010.

	Derivative receivables						Derivative payables
	March 31,			December 31,			March 31,			December 31,
(in millions)	2011			2010			2011			2010
Gross derivative fair value	$	1,340,506		$	1,529,412		$	1,293,244		$	1,485,109
Netting adjustment — offsetting receivables/payables		(1,197,097	)		(1,376,969	)		(1,197,097	)		(1,376,969	)
Netting adjustment — cash collateral received/paid		(64,665	)		(71,962	)		(34,785	)		(38,921	)
Carrying value on Consolidated Balance Sheets	$	78,744		$	80,481		$	61,362		$	69,219

111

In addition to the collateral amounts reflected in the tables above, at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, the Firm had received liquid securities and other cash collateral in the amount of $16.2 billion and $16.5 billion, respectively, and had posted liquid securities and other cash collateral in the amount of $10.2 billion and $10.9 billion, respectively. The Firm also receives and delivers collateral at the initiation of derivative transactions, which is available as security against potential exposure that could arise should the fair value of the transactions move, respectively, in the Firm’s or client’s favor. Furthermore, the Firm and its counterparties hold collateral related to contracts that have a non-daily call frequency for collateral to be posted, and collateral that the Firm or a counterparty has agreed to return but has not yet settled as of the reporting date. At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, the Firm had received $20.5 billion and $18.0 billion, respectively, and delivered $7.6 billion and $8.4 billion, respectively, of such additional collateral. These amounts were not netted against the derivative receivables and payables in the tables above, because, at an individual counterparty level, the collateral exceeded the fair value exposure at both March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010.

Credit derivatives

For a more detailed discussion of credit derivatives, including a description of the different types used by the Firm, see Note 6 on pages 191–199 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

The following tables present a summary of the notional amounts of credit derivatives and credit-related notes the Firm sold and purchased as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010. Upon a credit event, the Firm as a seller of protection would typically pay out only a percentage of the full notional amount of net protection sold, as the amount actually required to be paid on the contracts takes into account the recovery value of the reference obligation at the time of settlement. The Firm manages the credit risk on contracts to sell protection by purchasing protection with identical or similar underlying reference entities. Other purchased protection referenced in the following tables include credit derivatives bought on related, but not identical, reference positions (including indices, portfolio coverage and other reference points) as well as protection purchased through credit-related notes.

The Firm does not use notional amounts of credit derivatives as the primary measure of risk management for such derivatives, because the notional amount does not take into account the probability of the occurrence of a credit event, the recovery value of the reference obligation, or related cash instruments and economic hedges, each of which reduces, in the Firm’s view, the risks associated with such derivatives.

Total credit derivatives and credit-related notes

	Maximum payout/Notional amount
March 31, 2011				Protection purchased with		Net protection			Other protection
(in millions)	Protection sold			identical underlyings(b)		(sold)/purchased(c)			purchased(d)
Credit derivatives
Credit default swaps	$	(2,840,995	)	$	2,809,606	$	(31,389	)	$	33,757
Other credit derivatives(a)		(104,406	)		25,687		(78,719	)		30,692
Total credit derivatives		(2,945,401	)		2,835,293		(110,108	)		64,449
Credit-related notes		(1,965	)		—		(1,965	)		3,701
Total	$	(2,947,366	)	$	2,835,293	$	(112,073	)	$	68,150

	Maximum payout/Notional amount
December 31, 2010				Protection purchased with		Net protection			Other protection
(in millions)	Protection sold			identical underlyings(b)		(sold)/purchased(c)			purchased(d)
Credit derivatives
Credit default swaps	$	(2,659,240	)	$	2,652,313	$	(6,927	)	$	32,867
Other credit derivatives(a)		(93,776	)		10,016		(83,760	)		24,234
Total credit derivatives		(2,753,016	)		2,662,329		(90,687	)		57,101
Credit-related notes		(2,008	)		—		(2,008	)		3,327
Total	$	(2,755,024	)	$	2,662,329	$	(92,695	)	$	60,428

(a)	Primarily consists of total return swaps and credit default swap options.
(b)	Represents the total notional amount of protection purchased where the underlying reference instrument is identical to the reference instrument on protection sold; the notional amount of protection purchased for each individual identical underlying reference instrument may be greater or lower than the notional amount of protection sold.
(c)	Does not take into account the fair value of the reference obligation at the time of settlement, which would generally reduce the amount the seller of protection pays to the buyer of protection in determining settlement value.
(d)	Represents protection purchased by the Firm through single-name and index credit default swap or credit-related notes.

112

The following tables summarize the notional and fair value amounts of credit derivatives and credit-related notes as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, where JPMorgan Chase is the seller of protection. The maturity profile is based on the remaining contractual maturity of the credit derivative contracts. The ratings profile is based on the rating of the reference entity on which the credit derivative contract is based. The ratings and maturity profile of protection purchased are comparable to the profile reflected below.

Protection sold — credit derivatives and credit-related notes ratings^(a)/maturity profile

										Total
March 31, 2011 (in millions)	<1 year			1-5 years			>5 years			notional amount			Fair value(b)
Risk rating of reference entity
Investment-grade	$	(186,684	)	$	(1,224,970	)	$	(381,466	)	$	(1,793,120	)	$	(12,129	)
Noninvestment-grade		(163,679	)		(759,126	)		(231,441	)		(1,154,246	)		(54,503	)
Total	$	(350,363	)	$	(1,984,096	)	$	(612,907	)	$	(2,947,366	)	$	(66,632	)

										Total
December 31, 2010 (in millions)	<1 year			1-5 years			>5 years			notional amount			Fair value(b)
Risk rating of reference entity
Investment-grade	$	(175,618	)	$	(1,194,695	)	$	(336,309	)	$	(1,706,622	)	$	(17,261	)
Noninvestment-grade		(148,434	)		(702,638	)		(197,330	)		(1,048,402	)		(59,939	)
Total	$	(324,052	)	$	(1,897,333	)	$	(533,639	)	$	(2,755,024	)	$	(77,200	)

(a)	The ratings scale is based on the Firm’s internal ratings, which generally correspond to ratings as defined by S&P and Moody’s.
(b)	Amounts are shown on a gross basis, before the benefit of legally enforceable master netting agreements and cash collateral held by the Firm.

NOTE 6 — NONINTEREST REVENUE

For a discussion of the components of and accounting policies for the Firm’s other noninterest revenue, see Note 7 on pages 199–200 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

The following table presents the components of investment banking fees.

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010
Underwriting:
Equity	$	379	$	413
Debt		982		751
Total underwriting		1,361		1,164
Advisory		432		297
Total investment banking fees	$	1,793	$	1,461

The following table presents principal transactions revenue.

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010
Trading revenue	$	3,940	$	4,386
Private equity gains/(losses)(a)		805		162
Principal transactions	$	4,745	$	4,548

(a) Includes revenue on private equity investments held in the Private Equity business within Corporate/Private Equity, as well as those held in other business segments.

The following table presents components of asset management, administration and commissions.

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010
Asset management:
Investment management fees	$	1,494	$	1,327
All other asset management fees		144		109
Total asset management fees		1,638		1,436
Total administration fees(a)		551		491
Commission and other fees:
Brokerage commissions		763		703
All other commissions and fees		654		635
Total commissions and fees		1,417		1,338
Total asset management, administration and commissions	$	3,606	$	3,265

(a) Includes fees for custody, securities lending, funds services and securities clearance.

113

NOTE 7 — INTEREST INCOME AND INTEREST EXPENSE

For a description of JPMorgan Chase’s accounting policies regarding interest income and interest expense, see Note 8 on page 200 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Details of interest income and interest expense were as follows.

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010
Interest income
Loans	$	9,507	$	10,557
Securities		2,216		2,904
Trading assets		2,885		2,760
Federal funds sold and securities purchased under resale agreements		543		407
Securities borrowed		47		29
Deposits with banks		101		95
Other assets(a)		148		93
Total interest income		15,447		16,845
Interest expense
Interest-bearing deposits		922		844
Short-term and other liabilities(b)(c)		818		562
Long-term debt(c)		1,588		1,399
Beneficial interests issued by consolidated VIEs		214		330
Total interest expense		3,542		3,135
Net interest income		11,905		13,710
Provision for credit losses		1,169		7,010
Net interest income after provision for credit losses	$	10,736	$	6,700

(a)	Predominantly margin loans.
(b)	Includes brokerage customer payables.
(c)	Effective January 1, 2011, the long-term portion of advances from FHLBs was reclassified from other borrowed funds to long-term debt. The related interest expense for the prior-year period has also been reclassified to conform with the current presentation.

NOTE 8 — PENSION AND OTHER POSTRETIREMENT EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS

For a discussion of JPMorgan Chase’s pension and other postretirement employee benefit (“OPEB”) plans, see Note 9 on pages 201–210 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

The following table presents the components of net periodic benefit cost reported in the Consolidated Statements of Income for the Firm’s U.S. and non-U.S. defined benefit pension, defined contribution and OPEB plans.

	Pension plans
	U.S.						Non-U.S.						OPEB plans
Three months ended March 31, (in millions)	2011			2010			2011			2010			2011			2010
Components of net periodic benefit cost
Benefits earned during the period	$	62		$	58		$	9		$	7		$	—		$	—
Interest cost on benefit obligations		113			117			33			(14	)		13			15
Expected return on plan assets		(198	)		(186	)		(36	)		13			(22	)		(24	)
Amortization:
Net loss		41			56			12			14			—			—
Prior service cost/(credit)		(10	)		(11	)		—			—			(2	)		(3	)
Net periodic defined benefit cost		8			34			18			20			(11	)		(12	)
Other defined benefit pension plans(a)		7			4			4			4		NA			NA
Total defined benefit plans		15			38			22			24			(11	)		(12	)
Total defined contribution plans		78			63			78			65		NA			NA
Total pension and OPEB cost included in compensation expense	$	93		$	101		$	100		$	89		$	(11	)	$	(12	)

(a) Includes various defined benefit pension plans which are individually immaterial.

114

The fair values of plan assets for the U.S. defined benefit pension and OPEB plans and for the material non-U.S. defined benefit pension plans were $12.5 billion and $2.8 billion, respectively, as of March 31, 2011, and $12.2 billion and $2.6 billion, respectively, as of December 31, 2010. See Note 20 on page 155 of this Form 10-Q for further information on unrecognized amounts (i.e., net loss and prior service costs/(credit)) reflected in AOCI for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2011 and 2010.

The amount of potential 2011 contributions to the U.S. qualified defined benefit pension plans, if any, is not determinable at this time. For the full year 2011, the cost of funding benefits under the Firm’s U.S. non-qualified defined benefit pension plans is expected to total $42 million. The 2011 contributions to the non-U.S. defined benefit pension and OPEB plans are expected to be $166 million and $2 million, respectively.

NOTE 9 — EMPLOYEE STOCK-BASED INCENTIVES

For a discussion of the accounting policies and other information relating to employee stock-based incentives, see Note 10 on pages 210–212 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

The Firm recognized the following noncash compensation expense related to its various employee stock-based incentive plans in its Consolidated Statements of Income.

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010
Cost of prior grants of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) and stock appreciation rights (“SARs”) that are amortized over their applicable vesting periods	$	561	$	688
Accrual of estimated costs of RSUs and SARs to be granted in future periods including those to full-career eligible employees		269		253
Total noncash compensation expense related to employee stock-based incentive plans	$	830	$	941

In the first quarter of 2011, in connection with its annual incentive grant, the Firm granted 55 million RSUs and 14 million SARs with weighted-average grant date fair values of $44.31 per RSU and $13.12 per SAR.

NOTE 10 — NONINTEREST EXPENSE

The following table presents the components of noninterest expense.

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010
Compensation expense	$	8,263	$	7,276
Noncompensation expense:
Occupancy expense		978		869
Technology, communications and equipment expense		1,200		1,137
Professional and outside services		1,735		1,575
Marketing		659		583
Other expense(a)(b)		2,943		4,441
Amortization of intangibles		217		243
Total noncompensation expense		7,732		8,848
Total noninterest expense	$	15,995	$	16,124

(a)	The three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, included litigation expense of $1.1 billion and $2.9 billion, respectively.
(b)	The three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, included foreclosed property expense of $210 million and $303 million, respectively.

115

NOTE 11 — SECURITIES

Securities are classified as AFS, held-to-maturity (“HTM”) or trading. For additional information regarding AFS and HTM securities, see Note 12 on pages 214–218 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report. Trading securities are discussed in Note 3 on pages 94–105 of this Form 10-Q.

Securities gains and losses

The following table presents realized gains and losses and credit losses that were recognized in income from AFS securities.

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011			2010
Realized gains	$	152		$	752
Realized losses		(20	)		(42	)
Net realized gains(a)		132			710
Credit losses included in securities gains(b)		(30	)		(100	)
Net securities gains	$	102		$	610

(a)	Proceeds from securities sold were within approximately 2% of amortized cost.
(b)	Includes other-than-temporary impairment losses recognized in income on certain prime mortgage-backed securities for the three months ended March 31, 2011, and on certain prime mortgage-backed securities and obligations of U.S. states and municipalities for the three months ended March 31, 2010.

The amortized costs and estimated fair values of AFS and HTM securities were as follows for the dates indicated.

	March 31, 2011									December 31, 2010
			Gross		Gross							Gross		Gross
	Amortized		unrealized		unrealized			Fair		Amortized		unrealized		unrealized			Fair
(in millions)	cost		gains		losses			value		cost		gains		losses			value
Available-for-sale debt securities
Mortgage-backed securities:
U.S. government agencies(a)	$	119,503	$	2,762	$	411		$	121,854	$	117,364	$	3,159	$	297		$	120,226
Residential:
Prime and Alt-A		2,360		75		173	(d)		2,262		2,173		81		250	(d)		2,004
Non-U.S.		52,946		372		341			52,977		47,089		290		409			46,970
Commercial		4,584		417		18			4,983		5,169		502		17			5,654
Total mortgage-backed securities		179,393		3,626		943			182,076		171,795		4,032		973			174,854
U.S. Treasury and government agencies(a)		7,002		88		35			7,055		11,258		118		28			11,348
Obligations of U.S. states and municipalities		11,688		164		414			11,438		11,732		165		338			11,559
Certificates of deposit		3,486		3		—			3,489		3,648		1		2			3,647
Non-U.S. government debt securities		33,194		164		108			33,250		20,614		191		28			20,777
Corporate debt securities(b)		63,455		446		361			63,540		61,718		495		419			61,794
Asset-backed securities:
Credit card receivables		6,085		331		—			6,416		7,278		335		5			7,608
Collateralized loan obligations		14,459		581		172			14,868		13,336		472		210			13,598
Other		9,286		135		14			9,407		8,968		130		16			9,082
Total available-for-sale debt securities		328,048		5,538		2,047	(d)		331,539		310,347		5,939		2,019	(d)		314,267
Available-for-sale equity securities		3,071		174		—			3,245		1,894		163		6			2,051
Total available-for-sale securities	$	331,119	$	5,712	$	2,047	(d)	$	334,784	$	312,241	$	6,102	$	2,025	(d)	$	316,318
Total held-to-maturity securities(c)	$	16	$	1	$	—		$	17	$	18	$	2	$	—		$	20

(a)	Includes total U.S. government-sponsored enterprise obligations with fair values of $91.7 billion and $94.2 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively, which were predominantly mortgage-related.
(b)	Consists primarily of bank debt including sovereign government guaranteed bank debt.
(c)	Consists primarily of mortgage-backed securities issued by U.S. government-sponsored enterprises.
(d)	Includes a total of $106 million and $133 million (pretax) of unrealized losses related to prime mortgage-backed securities for which credit losses have been recognized in income at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively. These unrealized losses are not credit-related and remain reported in accumulated other comprehensive income/(loss) (“AOCI”).

116

Securities impairment

The following tables present the fair value and gross unrealized losses for AFS securities by aging category at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010.

	Securities with gross unrealized losses
	Less than 12 months				12 months or more						Total
			Gross				Gross		Total		gross
	Fair		unrealized		Fair		unrealized		fair		unrealized
March 31, 2011 (in millions)	value		losses		value		losses		value		losses
Available-for-sale debt securities
Mortgage-backed securities:
U.S. government agencies	$	17,342	$	408	$	169	$	3	$	17,511	$	411
Residential:
Prime and Alt-A		—		—		1,196		173		1,196		173
Non-U.S.		29,713		259		3,361		82		33,074		341
Commercial		499		18		—		—		499		18
Total mortgage-backed securities		47,554		685		4,726		258		52,280		943
U.S. Treasury and government agencies		715		35		—		—		715		35
Obligations of U.S. states and municipalities		7,198		406		18		8		7,216		414
Certificates of deposit		—		—		—		—		—		—
Non-U.S. government debt securities		11,506		108		—		—		11,506		108
Corporate debt securities		20,103		360		99		1		20,202		361
Asset-backed securities:
Credit card receivables		—		—		—		—		—		—
Collateralized loan obligations		824		5		5,610		167		6,434		172
Other		2,268		8		117		6		2,385		14
Total available-for-sale debt securities		90,168		1,607		10,570		440		100,738		2,047
Available-for-sale equity securities		—		—		—		—		—		—
Total securities with gross unrealized losses	$	90,168	$	1,607	$	10,570	$	440	$	100,738	$	2,047
	Securities with gross unrealized losses
	Less than 12 months				12 months or more						Total
			Gross				Gross		Total		gross
	Fair		unrealized		Fair		unrealized		fair		unrealized
December 31, 2010 (in millions)	value		losses		value		losses		value		losses
Available-for-sale debt securities
Mortgage-backed securities:
U.S. government agencies	$	14,039	$	297	$	—	$	—	$	14,039	$	297
Residential:
Prime and Alt-A		—		—		1,193		250		1,193		250
Non-U.S.		35,166		379		1,080		30		36,246		409
Commercial		548		14		11		3		559		17
Total mortgage-backed securities		49,753		690		2,284		283		52,037		973
U.S. Treasury and government agencies		921		28		—		—		921		28
Obligations of U.S. states and municipalities		6,890		330		20		8		6,910		338
Certificates of deposit		1,771		2		—		—		1,771		2
Non-U.S. government debt securities		6,960		28		—		—		6,960		28
Corporate debt securities		18,783		418		90		1		18,873		419
Asset-backed securities:
Credit card receivables		—		—		345		5		345		5
Collateralized loan obligations		460		10		6,321		200		6,781		210
Other		2,615		9		32		7		2,647		16
Total available-for-sale debt securities		88,153		1,515		9,092		504		97,245		2,019
Available-for-sale equity securities		—		—		2		6		2		6
Total securities with gross unrealized losses	$	88,153	$	1,515	$	9,094	$	510	$	97,247	$	2,025

117

Other-than-temporary impairment (“OTTI”)

The following table presents credit losses that are included in the securities gains and losses table above.

	Three months ended
	March 31,
(in millions)	2011			2010
Debt securities the Firm does not intend to sell that have credit losses
Total other-than-temporary impairment losses(a)	$	(27	)	$	(94	)
Losses recorded in/(reclassified from) other comprehensive income		(3	)		(6	)
Credit losses recognized in income(b)	$	(30	)	$	(100	)

(a)	For initial OTTI, represents the excess of the amortized cost over the fair value of AFS debt securities. For subsequent impairments of the same security, represents additional declines in fair value subsequent to previously recorded OTTI, if applicable.
(b)	Represents the credit loss component of certain prime mortgage-backed securities and obligations of U.S. states and municipalities that the Firm does not intend to sell. Subsequent credit losses may be recorded on securities without a corresponding further decline in fair value if there has been a decline in expected cash flows.

Changes in the credit loss component of credit-impaired debt securities

The following table presents a rollforward for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, of the credit loss component of OTTI losses that have been recognized in income, related to debt securities that the Firm does not intend to sell.

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010
Balance, beginning of period	$	632	$	578
Additions:
Newly credit-impaired securities		4		—
Increase in losses on previously credit-impaired securities		—		94
Losses reclassified from other comprehensive income on previously credit-impaired securities		26		6
Reductions:
Sales of credit-impaired securities		—		(3	)
Impact of new accounting guidance related to VIEs		—		(15	)
Balance, end of period	$	662	$	660

Gross unrealized losses

Gross unrealized losses have generally increased since December 31, 2010. As of March 31, 2011, the Firm does not intend to sell the securities with a loss position in AOCI, and it is not likely that the Firm will be required to sell these securities before recovery of their amortized cost basis. Except for the securities reported in the table above for which credit losses have been recognized in income, the Firm believes that the securities with an unrealized loss in AOCI are not other-than-temporarily impaired as of March 31, 2011.

Following is a description of the Firm’s principal security investments with the most significant unrealized losses that have been existing for 12 months or more as of March 31, 2011, and the key assumptions used in the Firm’s estimate of the present value of the cash flows most likely to be collected from these investments.

Mortgage-backed securities — Prime and Alt-A nonagency

As of March 31, 2011, gross unrealized losses related to prime and Alt-A residential mortgage-backed securities issued by private issuers were $173 million, all of which related to securities that have been in an unrealized loss position for 12 months or more. Approximately 57% of the total portfolio (by amortized cost) are currently rated below investment- grade; the Firm has recorded OTTI losses on 67% of the below investment-grade positions. In analyzing prime and Alt-A residential mortgage-backed securities for potential credit losses, the Firm utilizes a methodology that focuses on loan-level detail to estimate future cash flows, which are then allocated to the various tranches of the securities. The loan-level analysis primarily considers current home value, loan-to-value (“LTV”) ratio, loan type and geographical location of the underlying property to forecast prepayment, home price, default rate and loss severity. The forecasted weighted average underlying default rate on the positions was 24% and the related weighted average loss severity was 49%. Based on this analysis, an OTTI loss of $30 million was recognized for the three months ended March 31, 2011, on certain securities related to higher default rate assumptions, partially offset by lower loss severities. Overall unrealized losses have decreased since December 31, 2010, as a result of the recovery in security prices due to increased demand for higher-yielding asset classes and a deceleration in the pace of home price declines due in part to the U.S. government programs to facilitate financing and to spur home purchases. The unrealized loss of $173 million is considered temporary, based on management’s assessment that the estimated future cash flows together with the credit enhancement levels for those

118

securities remain sufficient to support the Firm’s investment. The credit enhancements associated with the below investment-grade and investment-grade positions are 9% and 43%, respectively.

Asset-backed securities — Collateralized loan obligations

As of March 31, 2011, gross unrealized losses related to CLOs were $172 million, of which $167 million related to securities that were in an unrealized loss position for 12 months or more. Overall losses have decreased since December 31, 2010, mainly as a result of lower default forecasts and spread tightening across various asset classes. Substantially all of these securities are rated “AAA,” “AA” and “A” and have an average credit enhancement of 30%. Credit enhancement in CLOs is primarily in the form of subordination, which is a form of structural credit enhancement where realized losses associated with assets held in an issuing vehicle are allocated to the various tranches of securities issued by the vehicle considering their relative seniority. The key assumptions considered in analyzing potential credit losses were underlying loan and debt security defaults and loss severity. Based on current default trends, the Firm assumed collateral default rates of 2.1% for the first quarter 2011, and 5% thereafter. Further, loss severities were assumed to be 48% for loans and 82% for debt securities. Losses on collateral were estimated to occur approximately 18 months after default.

119

Contractual maturities and yields

The following table presents the amortized cost and estimated fair value at March 31, 2011, of JPMorgan Chase’s AFS and HTM securities by contractual maturity.

	March 31, 2011
							Due after five
By remaining maturity	Due in one			Due after one year			years through 10			Due after
(in millions)	year or less			through five years			years			10 years(c)			Total
Available-for-sale debt securities
Mortgage-backed securities(a)
Amortized cost	$	—		$	353		$	3,196		$	175,844		$	179,393
Fair value		—			375			3,217			178,484			182,076
Average yield(b)		—	%		4.77	%		2.28	%		3.73	%		3.71	%
U.S. Treasury and government agencies(a)
Amortized cost	$	2,908		$	3,843		$	—		$	251		$	7,002
Fair value		2,925			3,906			—			224			7,055
Average yield(b)		1.61	%		2.32	%		—	%		3.86	%		2.08	%
Obligations of U.S. states and municipalities
Amortized cost	$	22		$	159		$	337		$	11,170		$	11,688
Fair value		22			166			355			10,895			11,438
Average yield(b)		1.07	%		3.11	%		4.68	%		4.88	%		4.84	%
Certificates of deposit
Amortized cost	$	3,390		$	96		$	—		$	—		$	3,486
Fair value		3,393			96			—			—			3,489
Average yield(b)		3.34	%		0.93	%		—	%		—	%		3.28	%
Non-U.S. government debt securities
Amortized cost	$	7,892		$	22,281		$	2,872		$	149		$	33,194
Fair value		7,927			22,319			2,855			149			33,250
Average yield(b)		1.76	%		2.11	%		2.54	%		7.73	%		2.09	%
Corporate debt securities
Amortized cost	$	17,255		$	40,548		$	5,651		$	1		$	63,455
Fair value		17,359			40,501			5,679			1			63,540
Average yield(b)		1.93	%		2.21	%		4.88	%		1.00	%		2.37	%
Asset-backed securities
Amortized cost	$	41		$	3,301		$	13,704		$	12,784		$	29,830
Fair value		41			3,412			14,246			12,992			30,691
Average yield(b)		8.75	%		3.21	%		2.40	%		2.15	%		2.39	%
Total available-for-sale debt securities
Amortized cost	$	31,508		$	70,581		$	25,760		$	200,199		$	328,048
Fair value		31,667			70,775			26,352			202,745			331,539
Average yield(b)		2.01	%		2.25	%		2.97	%		3.70	%		3.17	%
Available-for-sale equity securities
Amortized cost	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	3,071		$	3,071
Fair value		—			—			—			3,245			3,245
Average yield(b)		—	%		—	%		—	%		0.17	%		0.17	%
Total available-for-sale securities
Amortized cost	$	31,508		$	70,581		$	25,760		$	203,270		$	331,119
Fair value		31,667			70,775			26,352			205,990			334,784
Average yield(b)		2.01	%		2.25	%		2.97	%		3.64	%		3.14	%
Total held-to-maturity securities
Amortized cost	$	—		$	7		$	8		$	1		$	16
Fair value		—			7			9			1			17
Average yield(b)		—	%		6.97	%		6.82	%		6.47	%		6.86	%

(a)	U.S. government agencies and U.S. government-sponsored enterprises were the only issuers whose securities exceeded 10% of JPMorgan Chase’s total stockholders’ equity at March 31, 2011.
(b)	The average yield is computed using the effective yield of each security owned at the end of the period, weighted based on the amortized cost of each security. The effective yield considers the contractual coupon, amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts, and the effect of related hedging derivatives. Taxable equivalent amounts are used where applicable.
(c)	Includes securities with no stated maturity. Substantially all of the Firm’s residential mortgage-backed securities and collateralized mortgage obligations are due in 10 years or more, based on contractual maturity. The estimated duration, which reflects anticipated future prepayments based on a consensus of dealers in the market, is approximately five years for agency residential mortgage-backed securities, three years for agency residential collateralized mortgage obligations and five years for nonagency residential collateralized mortgage obligations.

120

NOTE 12 — SECURITIES FINANCING ACTIVITIES

For a discussion of accounting policies relating to securities financing activities, see Note 13 on page 219 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report. For further information regarding securities borrowed and securities lending agreements for which the fair value option has been elected, see Note 4 on pages 105–106 of this Form 10-Q.

The following table details the Firm’s securities financing agreements, all of which are accounted for as collateralized financings during the periods presented.

(in millions)	March 31, 2011		December 31, 2010
Securities purchased under resale agreements(a)	$	216,988	$	222,302
Securities borrowed(b)		119,000		123,587
Securities sold under repurchase agreements(c)	$	259,147	$	262,722
Securities loaned		23,124		10,592

(a)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included resale agreements of $20.0 billion and $20.3 billion, respectively, accounted for at fair value.
(b)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included securities borrowed of $15.3 billion and $14.0 billion, respectively, accounted for at fair value.
(c)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included repurchase agreements of $6.2 billion and $4.1 billion, respectively, accounted for at fair value.

The amounts reported in the table above were reduced by $125.3 billion and $112.7 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively, as a result of agreements in effect that meet the specified conditions for net presentation under applicable accounting guidance.

For further information regarding assets pledged and collateral received in securities financing agreements, see Note 22 on page 160 of this Form 10-Q.

121

NOTE 13 — LOANS

Loan accounting framework

The accounting for a loan depends on management’s strategy for the loan, and on whether the loan was credit-impaired at the date of acquisition. The Firm accounts for and measures the loans as follows:

• Originated or purchased loans held-for-investment (i.e., “retained”), other than PCI loans, are measured at the principal amount outstanding, net of the following: allowance for loan losses; net charge-offs; interest applied to principal (for loans accounted for on the cost recovery method); unamortized discounts and premiums; and deferred loan fees or costs.

• Held-for-sale loans are measured at the lower of cost or fair value, with valuation changes recorded in noninterest revenue.

• Loans used in a trading strategy or risk managed on a fair value basis are measured at fair value, with changes in fair value recorded in noninterest revenue.

• PCI loans held-for-investment are initially recorded at fair value upon acquisition.

For a detailed discussion of loans, including accounting policies, see Note 14 on pages 220–238 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report. See Note 4 on pages 105–106 of this Form 10-Q for further information on the Firm’s elections of fair value accounting under the fair value option. See Note 3 on pages 94–105 of this Form 10-Q for further information on loans carried at fair value and classified as trading assets.

Loan portfolio

The Firm’s loan portfolio is divided into three portfolio segments, which are the same segments used by the Firm to determine the allowance for loan losses: Wholesale; Consumer, excluding credit card; and Credit Card. Within each portfolio segment, the Firm monitors and assesses the credit risk in the following classes of loans, based on the risk characteristics of each loan class:

Wholesale^(a)

•   Commercial and industrial

•   Real estate

•   Financial institutions

•   Government agencies

•   Other

Consumer, excluding

credit card^(b)

Residential real estate — excluding PCI

•   Home equity — senior lien

•   Home equity — junior lien

•   Prime mortgage, including option adjustable-rate mortgages (“ARMs”)

•   Subprime mortgage

Other consumer loans

•   Auto^(c)

•   Business banking^(c)

•    Student and other

Residential real estate — PCI

•    Home equity

•    Prime mortgage

•    Subprime mortgage

•    Option ARMs

Credit Card

•   Chase, excluding accounts originated by Washington Mutual

•    Accounts originated by Washington Mutual

(a)	Includes loans reported in IB, Commercial Banking (“CB”), Treasury & Securities Services (“TSS”), Asset Management (“AM”) and Corporate/Private Equity segments.
(b)	Includes RFS and residential real estate loans reported in the Corporate/Private Equity segment.
(c)	Includes risk-rated loans that apply the Firm’s wholesale methodology for determining the allowance for loan losses; these loans are managed by RFS and therefore, for consistency in presentation, are included with the other consumer loan classes.

122

The following table summarizes the Firm’s loan balances by portfolio segment:

			Consumer, excluding
March 31, 2011 (in millions)	Wholesale		credit card		Credit Card		Total
Retained	$	229,648	$	320,998	$	124,791	$	675,437	(a)
Held-for-sale		4,554		188		4,012		8,754
At fair value		1,805		—		—		1,805
Total	$	236,007	$	321,186	$	128,803	$	685,996

			Consumer, excluding
December 31, 2010 (in millions)	Wholesale		credit card		Credit Card		Total
Retained	$	222,510	$	327,464	$	135,524	$	685,498	(a)
Held-for-sale		3,147		154		2,152		5,453
At fair value		1,976		—		—		1,976
Total	$	227,633	$	327,618	$	137,676	$	692,927

(a) Loans (other than PCI loans and those for which the fair value option has been selected) are presented net of unearned income, unamortized discounts and premiums, and net deferred loan costs of $2.4 billion and $1.9 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

The following table provides information about the carrying value of retained loans purchased, retained loans sold and retained loans reclassified to loans held-for-sale during the periods indicated. This table excludes loans recorded at fair value. On an on-going basis, the Firm manages its exposure to credit risk. Selling loans is one way that the Firm reduces its credit exposures.

			Consumer, excluding
Three months ended March 31, 2011 (in millions)	Wholesale		credit card		Credit Card		Total
Purchases:	$	123	$	1,992	$	—	$	2,115
Sales:		877		257		—		1,134
Retained loans reclassified to held-for-sale		177		—		1,912		2,089

The following table provides information about gains and losses on loan sales by portfolio segment.

Three months ended March 31, (in millions)	2011			2010
Net gains/(losses) on sales of loans (including lower of cost or fair value adjustments)(a)
Wholesale	$	61		$	79
Consumer, excluding credit card		25			30
Credit Card		(20	)		—
Total net gains/(losses) on sales of loans (including lower of cost or fair value adjustments)(a)	$	66		$	109

(a) Excludes sales related to loans accounted for at fair value.

123

Wholesale loan portfolio

Wholesale loans include loans made to a variety of customers from large corporate and institutional clients to certain high-net worth individuals. The primary credit quality indicator for wholesale loans is the risk rating assigned each loan. For further information on the risk ratings, see Note 14 on pages 220–238 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

The table below provides information by class of receivable for the retained loans in the Wholesale portfolio segment.

	Commercial
	and industrial						Real estate
	March 31,			December 31,			March 31,			December 31,
(in millions, except ratios)	2011			2010			2011			2010
Loans by risk ratings
Investment-grade	$	33,942		$	31,697		$	28,884		$	28,504
Noninvestment-grade:
Noncriticized		31,943			30,874			16,167			16,425
Criticized performing		2,393			2,371			5,405			5,769
Criticized–total nonaccrual		1,457			1,634			2,364			2,937
Total noninvestment grade		35,793			34,879			23,936			25,131
Total retained loans	$	69,735		$	66,576		$	52,820		$	53,635
% of total criticized to total retained loans		5.52	%		6.02	%		14.71	%		16.23	%
% of nonaccrual loans to total retained loans		2.09			2.45			4.48			5.48
Loans by geographic distribution(a)
Total non-U.S.	$	19,298		$	17,731		$	1,513		$	1,963
Total U.S.		50,437			48,845			51,307			51,672
Total retained loans	$	69,735		$	66,576		$	52,820		$	53,635
Loan delinquency(b)
Current and less than 30 days past due and still accruing	$	68,092		$	64,501		$	50,162		$	50,299
30–89 days past due and still accruing		180			434			247			290
90 or more days past due and still accruing(c)		6			7			47			109
Nonaccrual		1,457			1,634			2,364			2,937
Total retained loans	$	69,735		$	66,576		$	52,820		$	53,635

(a)	U.S. and non-U.S. distribution is determined based predominantly on the domicile of the borrower.
(b)	For wholesale loans, the past due status of a loan is generally not a significant indicator of credit quality due to the ongoing review and monitoring of an obligor’s ability to meet contractual obligations. For a discussion of more significant factors, see Note 14 on page 223 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.
(c)	Represents loans that are 90 days or more past due as to principal and/or interest, but that are still accruing interest; these loans are considered well-collateralized.
(d)	Other primarily includes loans to special purpose entities and loans to private banking clients. See Note 1 on pages 164–165 of the Firm’s 2010 Annual Report for additional information on SPEs.

The following table presents additional information on the real estate class of loans within the wholesale portfolio segment for the periods indicated. For further information on real estate loans, see Note 14 on pages 220–238 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

	Multi-family						Commercial lessors
	March 31,			December 31,			March 31,			December 31,
(in millions, except ratios)	2011			2010			2011			2010
Real estate retained loans	$	30,501		$	30,604		$	15,226		$	15,796
Criticized exposure		3,623			3,798			2,850			3,593
% of total real estate retained loans		11.88	%		12.41	%		18.72	%		22.75	%
Criticized nonaccrual	$	1,027		$	1,016		$	1,000		$	1,549
% of total real estate retained loans		3.37	%		3.32	%		6.57	%		9.81	%

124

(table continued from previous page)

Financial																		Total
institutions						Government agencies						Other(d)						retained loans
March 31,			December 31,			March 31,			December 31,			March 31,			December 31,			March 31,			December 31,
2011			2010			2011			2010			2011			2010			2011			2010
$	24,940		$	22,525		$	6,304		$	6,871		$	59,089		$	56,450		$	153,159		$	146,047
	7,312			8,480			355			382			7,642			6,012			63,419			62,173
	297			317			5			3			392			320			8,492			8,780
	90			136			22			22			645			781			4,578			5,510
	7,699			8,933			382			407			8,679			7,113			76,489			76,463
$	32,639		$	31,458		$	6,686		$	7,278		$	67,768		$	63,563		$	229,648		$	222,510
	1.19	%		1.44	%		0.40	%		0.34	%		1.53	%		1.73	%		5.69	%		6.42	%
	0.28			0.43			0.33			0.30			0.95			1.23			1.99			2.48
$	23,704		$	19,756		$	834		$	870		$	27,113		$	25,831		$	72,462		$	66,151
	8,935			11,702			5,852			6,408			40,655			37,732			157,186			156,359
$	32,639		$	31,458		$	6,686		$	7,278		$	67,768		$	63,563		$	229,648		$	222,510
$	32,454		$	31,289		$	6,658		$	7,222		$	66,362		$	61,837		$	223,728		$	215,148
	93			31			6			34			693			704			1,219			1,493
	2			2			—			—			68			241			123			359
	90			136			22			22			645			781			4,578			5,510
$	32,639		$	31,458		$	6,686		$	7,278		$	67,768		$	63,563		$	229,648		$	222,510

(table continued from previous page)

Commercial construction and development						Other						Total real estate loans
March 31,			December 31,			March 31,			December 31,			March 31,			December 31,
2011			2010			2011			2010			2011			2010
$	3,294		$	3,395		$	3,799		$	3,840		$	52,820		$	53,635
	535			619			761			696			7,769			8,706
	16.24	%		18.23	%		20.03	%		18.13	%		14.71	%		16.23	%
$	141		$	174		$	196		$	198		$	2,364		$	2,937
	4.28	%		5.13	%		5.16	%		5.16	%		4.48	%		5.48	%

125

Wholesale impaired loans and loan modifications

Wholesale impaired loans include loans that have been placed on nonaccrual status and/or that have been modified in a TDR. All impaired loans are evaluated for an asset-specific allowance as described in Note 14 on pages 139—140 of this Form 10-Q.

The table below set forth information about the Firm’s wholesale impaired loans.

	Commercial								Financial				Government								Total
	and industrial				Real estate				institutions				agencies				Other				retained loans
	March 31,		December 31,		March 31,		December 31,		March 31,		December 31,		March 31,		December 31,		March 31,		December 31,		March 31,		December 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
Impaired loans
With an allowance	$	1,382	$	1,512	$	2,043	$	2,510	$	72	$	127	$	22	$	22	$	550	$	697	$	4,069	$	4,868
Without an allowance(a)		135		157		257		445		18		8		—		—		19		8		429		618
Total impaired loans	$	1,517	$	1,669	$	2,300	$	2,955	$	90	$	135	$	22	$	22	$	569	$	705	$	4,498	$	5,486
Allowance for loan losses related to impaired loans(b)	$	414	$	435	$	436	$	825	$	28	$	61	$	14	$	14	$	138	$	239	$	1,030	$	1,574
Unpaid principal balance of impaired loans(c)		2,507		2,453		2,777		3,487		218		244		31		30		917		1,046		6,450		7,260

(a)	When the discounted cash flows, collateral value or market price equals or exceeds the recorded investment in the loan, then the loan does not require an allowance. This typically occurs when the impaired loans have been partially charged-off and/or there have been interest payments received and applied to the loan balance.
(b)	The allowance for impaired loans is included in JPMorgan Chase’s asset-specific allowance for loan losses.
(c)	Represents the contractual amount of principal owed at March 31, 2001 and December 31, 2010. The unpaid principal balance differs from the impaired loan balances due to various factors, including charge-offs; interest payments received and applied to the carrying value; net deferred loan fees or costs; and unamortized discount or premiums on purchased loans.

The following table presents the Firm’s average impaired loans for the periods indicated.

Three months ended March 31,	Average impaired loans
(in millions)	2011		2010
Commercial and industrial	$	1,553	$	1,905
Real estate		2,730		3,041
Financial institutions		94		512
Government agencies		22		3
Other		637		995
Total(a)	$	5,036	$	6,456

(a) The related interest income on accruing impaired loans and interest income recognized on a cash basis were notmaterial for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010.

The following table provides information about the Firm’s wholesale loans modified in troubled debt restructurings (“TDRs”). These TDR loans are included as impaired loans in the above tables.

	Commercial								Financial				Government								Total
	and industrial				Real estate				institutions				agencies				Other				retained loans
	March 31,		December 31,		March 31,		December 31,		March 31,		December 31,		March 31,		December 31,		March 31,		December 31,		March 31,		December 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
Loans modified in troubled debt restructurings(a)	$	156	$	212	$	270	$	907	$	1	$	1	$	22	$	22	$	—	$	1	$	449	$	1,143
TDRs on nonaccrual status		105		163		269		831		1		1		22		22		—		1		397		1,018
Additional commitments to lend to borrowers whose loans have been modified in TDRs		4		1		18		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		22		1

(a) These modifications generally provided interest rate concessions to the borrower or deferral of principal repayments.

126

Consumer loan portfolio

Consumer loans, excluding credit card loans, consist primarily of residential mortgages, home equity loans, auto loans, business banking loans, and student and other loans, with a primary focus on serving the prime consumer credit market. The portfolio also includes home equity loans secured by junior liens and mortgage loans with interest-only payment options to predominantly prime borrowers, as well as certain payment-option loans originated by Washington Mutual that may result in negative amortization.

The table below provides information about consumer retained loans by class, excluding the credit card loan portfolio segment.

(in millions)	March 31, 2011		December 31, 2010
Residential real estate – excluding PCI
Home equity:
Senior lien(a)	$	24,071	$	24,376
Junior lien(b)		61,182		64,009
Mortgages:
Prime, including option ARMs		74,682		74,539
Subprime		10,841		11,287
Other consumer loans
Auto		47,411		48,367
Business banking		16,957		16,812
Student and other		15,089		15,311
Residential real estate – PCI
Home equity		23,973		24,459
Prime mortgage		16,725		17,322
Subprime mortgage		5,276		5,398
Option ARMs		24,791		25,584
Total retained loans	$	320,998	$	327,464

(a)	Represents loans where JPMorgan Chase holds the first security interest on the property.
(b)	Represents loans where JPMorgan Chase holds a security interest that is subordinate in rank to other liens.

Delinquency rates are a primary credit quality indicator for consumer loans. Other credit quality indicators for consumer loans include:

• For residential real estate loans, including both non-PCI and PCI portfolios: The current estimated loan-to-value (“LTV”) ratio, or the combined LTV ratio in the case of loans with a junior lien, the geographic distribution of the loan collateral, and the borrowers’ current or “refreshed” FICO score.

• For auto, scored business banking and student loans: Geographic distribution.

• For risk-rated business banking and auto loans: Risk ratings of the loan, geographic considerations and whether the loan is considered to be criticized and/or nonaccrual.

For further information on consumer credit quality indicators, see Note 14 on pages 220–238 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

127

Residential real estate — excluding PCI loans

The tables below provide information by class for residential real estate (excluding PCI) retained loans in the consumer, excluding credit card portfolio segment.

	Home equity
	Senior lien						Junior lien
	March 31,			December 31,			March 31,			December 31,
(in millions, except ratios)	2011			2010			2011			2010
Loan delinquency(a)
Current and less than 30 days past due	$	23,354		$	23,615		$	59,676		$	62,315
30–149 days past due		364			414			1,304			1,508
150 or more days past due		353			347			202			186
Total retained loans	$	24,071		$	24,376		$	61,182		$	64,009
% of 30+ days past due to total retained loans		2.98	%		3.12	%		2.46	%		2.65	%
90 or more days past due and still accruing	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—
Nonaccrual loans(b)		470			479			793			784
Current estimated LTV ratios(c)(d)(e)
Greater than 125% and refreshed FICO scores:
Equal to or greater than 660	$	558		$	528		$	7,026		$	6,928
Less than 660		243			238			2,530			2,495
101% to 125% and refreshed FICO scores:
Equal to or greater than 660		1,100			974			9,390			9,403
Less than 660		354			325			2,836			2,873
80% to 100% and refreshed FICO scores:
Equal to or greater than 660		2,934			2,860			12,603			13,333
Less than 660		744			738			2,940			3,155
Less than 80% and refreshed FICO scores:
Equal to or greater than 660		15,478			15,994			20,759			22,527
Less than 660		2,660			2,719			3,098			3,295
U.S. government-guaranteed		—			—			—			—
Total retained loans	$	24,071		$	24,376		$	61,182		$	64,009
Geographic region
California	$	3,336		$	3,348		$	14,037		$	14,656
New York		3,266			3,272			11,809			12,278
Texas		3,499			3,594			2,114			2,239
Florida		1,078			1,088			3,312			3,470
Illinois		1,622			1,635			4,068			4,248
Ohio		1,977			2,010			1,487			1,568
New Jersey		731			732			3,461			3,617
Michigan		1,159			1,176			1,545			1,618
Arizona		1,461			1,481			2,827			2,979
Washington		767			776			2,051			2,142
All other(f)		5,175			5,264			14,471			15,194
Total retained loans	$	24,071		$	24,376		$	61,182		$	64,009

(a)	Mortgage loans insured by U.S. government agencies are included in the delinquency classifications presented. Prior period amounts have been revised to conform to the current period presentation.
(b)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, nonaccrual loans excluded mortgage loans insured by U.S. government agencies of $9.8 billion and $10.5 billion, respectively, that are accruing at the guaranteed reimbursement rate. These amounts were excluded as reimbursement of insured amounts is proceeding normally.
(c)	Represents the aggregate unpaid principal balance of loans divided by the estimated current property value. Current property values are estimated, at a minimum, quarterly, based on home valuation models utilizing nationally recognized home price index valuation estimates incorporating actual data to the extent available and forecasted data where actual data is not available. These property values do not represent actual appraised loan level collateral values; as such, the resulting ratios are necessarily imprecise and should be viewed as estimates.
(d)	Junior lien represents combined LTV, which considers all available lien positions related to the property. All other products are presented without consideration of subordinate liens on the property.
(e)	Refreshed FICO scores represent each borrower’s most recent credit score, which is obtained by the Firm at least on a quarterly basis.
(f)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included mortgage loans insured by U.S. government agencies of $13.0 billion and $12.9 billion, respectively.
(g)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, excluded mortgage loans insured by U.S. government agencies of $10.4 billion and $11.4 billion, respectively. These amounts were excluded as reimbursement of insured amounts is proceeding normally.

128

(table continued from previous page)

Mortgages												Total residential real
Prime, including option ARMs						Subprime						estate (excluding PCI)
March 31,			December 31,			March 31,			December 31,			March 31,			December 31,
2011			2010			2011			2010			2011			2010
$	60,399		$	59,223		$	8,236		$	8,477		$	151,665		$	153,630
	3,155			4,052			961			1,184			5,784			7,158
	11,128			11,264			1,644			1,626			13,327			13,423
$	74,682		$	74,539		$	10,841		$	11,287		$	170,776		$	174,211
	6.36%	(g)		6.68	%(g)		24.03	%		24.90	%		5.61%	(g)		5.88	%(g)
$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—
	4,166			4,320			2,106			2,210			7,535			7,793
$	3,250		$	3,039		$	377		$	338		$	11,211		$	10,833
	1,603			1,595			1,209			1,153			5,585			5,481
	4,798			4,733			511			506			15,799			15,616
	1,805			1,775			1,481			1,486			6,476			6,459
	10,652			10,720			889			925			27,078			27,838
	2,792			2,786			1,841			1,955			8,317			8,634
	32,200			32,385			2,056			2,252			70,493			73,158
	4,587			4,557			2,477			2,672			12,822			13,243
	12,995			12,949			—			—			12,995			12,949
$	74,682		$	74,539		$	10,841		$	11,287		$	170,776		$	174,211
$	19,070		$	19,278		$	1,660		$	1,730		$	38,103		$	39,012
	9,745			9,587			1,332			1,381			26,152			26,518
	2,688			2,569			333			345			8,634			8,747
	4,709			4,840			1,362			1,422			10,461			10,820
	3,885			3,765			445			468			10,020			10,116
	455			462			265			275			4,184			4,315
	2,027			2,026			513			534			6,732			6,909
	951			963			281			294			3,936			4,051
	1,274			1,320			230			244			5,792			6,024
	2,021			2,056			238			247			5,077			5,221
	27,857			27,673			4,182			4,347			51,685			52,478
$	74,682		$	74,539		$	10,841		$	11,287		$	170,776		$	174,211

129

Residential real estate impaired loans and loan modifications — excluding PCI loans

The Firm is participating in the U.S. Treasury’s Making Home Affordable (“MHA”) programs and is continuing to expand its other loss-mitigation efforts for financially distressed borrowers who do not qualify for the MHA programs. For further information, see Note 14 on pages 220–238 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

The tables below set forth information about the Firm’s residential real estate impaired loans, excluding PCI. These loans are considered to be impaired as they have been modified in a TDR. All impaired loans are evaluated for an asset-specific allowance as described in Note 14 on pages 139–140 of this Form 10-Q.

	Home equity								Mortgages
									Prime, including								Total residential real
	Senior lien				Junior lien				option ARMs				Subprime				estate (excluding PCI)
	March 31,		December 31,		March 31,		December 31,		March 31,		December 31,		March 31,		December 31,		March 31,		December 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
Impaired loans(a)(b)
With an allowance	$	217	$	211	$	380	$	258	$	2,421	$	1,525	$	2,573	$	2,563	$	5,591	$	4,557
Without an allowance(c)		17		15		29		25		569		559		181		188		796		787
Total impaired loans(d)	$	234	$	226	$	409	$	283	$	2,990	$	2,084	$	2,754	$	2,751	$	6,387	$	5,344
Allowance for loan losses related to impaired loans	$	72	$	77	$	114	$	82	$	92	$	97	$	537	$	555	$	815	$	811
Unpaid principal balance of impaired loans(e)		281		265		551		402		3,757		2,751		3,872		3,777		8,461		7,195
Impaired loans on nonaccrual status		38		38		178		63		570		534		595		632		1,381		1,267

(a)	Represents loans modified in a TDR. These modifications generally provided interest rate concessions to the borrower or deferral of principal repayments.
(b)	There were no additional commitments to lend to borrowers whose loans have been modified in TDRs as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010.
(c)	When discounted cash flows or collateral value equals or exceeds the recorded investment in the loan, the loan does not require an allowance. This result typically occurs when an impaired loan has been partially charged off.
(d)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, $3.6 billion and $3.0 billion, respectively, of loans modified subsequent to repurchase from Ginnie Mae were excluded from loans accounted for as TDRs. When such loans perform subsequent to modification they are generally sold back into Ginnie Mae loan pools. Modified loans that do not re-perform become subject to foreclosure. Substantially all amounts due under the terms of these loans continue to be insured, and where applicable, reimbursement of insured amounts is proceeding normally.
(e)	Represents the contractual amount of principal owed at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010. The unpaid principal balance differs from the impaired loan balances due to various factors, including charge-offs; net deferred loan fees or costs; and unamortized discounts or premiums on purchased loans.

The following table presents average impaired loans and the related interest income reported by the Firm.

									Interest income on impaired
Three months ended March 31,	Average impaired loans				Interest income on impaired loans(a)				loans on a cash basis(a)
(in millions)	2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
Home equity
Senior lien	$	231	$	165	$	3	$	2	$	—	$	—
Junior lien		353		269		4		3		—		—
Mortgages
Prime, including option ARMs		2,477		976		26		17		3		1
Subprime		2,750		2,206		34		27		3		4
Total residential real estate (excluding PCI)	$	5,811	$	3,616	$	67	$	49	$	6	$	5

(a) Generally, interest income on loans modified in a TDR is recognized on a cash basis until such time as the borrower has made a minimum of six payments under the new terms. As of March 31, 2011 and 2010, loans of $640 million and $663 million, respectively, were TDRs for which the borrowers had not yet made six payments under their modified terms.

130

Other consumer loans

The tables below provide information for other consumer retained loan classes, including auto, business banking and student loans.

	Auto						Business banking						Student and other					Total other consumer
	March 31,			December 31,			March 31,			December 31,			March 31,			December		March 31,			December 31,
(in millions, except ratios)	2011			2010			2011			2010			2011			31, 2010		2011			2010
Loan delinquency(a)
Current and less than 30 days past due	$	46,949		$	47,778		$	16,443		$	16,240		$	13,744		$	13,998	$	77,136		$	78,016
30–119 days past due		454			579			322			351			828			795		1,604			1,725
120 or more days past due		8			10			192			221			517			518		717			749
Total retained loans	$	47,411		$	48,367		$	16,957		$	16,812		$	15,089		$	15,311	$	79,457		$	80,490
% of 30+ days past due to total retained loans		0.97	%		1.22	%		3.03	%		3.40	%		1.99%	(d)	1.61%(d)			1.61%	(d)	1.75%(d)
90 or more days past due and still accruing(b)	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	615		$	625	$	615		$	625
Nonaccrual loans		120			141			810			832			107			67		1,037			1,040
Geographic region
California	$	4,214		$	4,307		$	966		$	851		$	1,314		$	1,330	$	6,494		$	6,488
New York		3,781			3,875			2,882			2,877			1,296			1,305		7,959			8,057
Texas		4,385			4,505			2,582			2,550			1,245			1,273		8,212			8,328
Florida		1,865			1,923			222			220			710			722		2,797			2,865
Illinois		2,540			2,608			1,323			1,320			934			940		4,797			4,868
Ohio		2,855			2,961			1,603			1,647			994			1,010		5,452			5,618
New Jersey		1,832			1,842			229			422			499			502		2,560			2,766
Michigan		2,377			2,434			1,394			1,401			714			729		4,485			4,564
Arizona		1,438			1,499			1,210			1,218			377			387		3,025			3,104
Washington		734			716			133			115			275			279		1,142			1,110
All other		21,390			21,697			4,413			4,191			6,731			6,834		32,534			32,722
Total retained loans	$	47,411		$	48,367		$	16,957		$	16,812		$	15,089		$	15,311	$	79,457		$	80,490
Loans by risk ratings(c)
Noncriticized	$	5,840		$	5,803		$	11,153		$	10,831		NA			NA		$	16,993		$	16,634
Criticized performing		257			265			457			502		NA			NA			714			767
Criticized nonaccrual		8			12			574			574		NA			NA			582			586

(a)	Loans insured by U.S. government agencies under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (“FFELP”) are included in the delinquency classifications presented based on their payment status. Prior period amounts have been revised to conform to the current period presentation.
(b)	These amounts represent student loans, which are insured by U.S. government agencies under the FFELP. These amounts were accruing as reimbursement of insured amounts is proceeding normally.
(c)	For risk-rated business banking and auto loans, the primary credit quality indicator is the risk rating of the loan, including whether the loans are considered to be criticized and/or nonaccrual.
(d)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, excluded loans 30 days or more past due and still accruing, which are insured by U.S. government agencies under the FFELP, of $1.0 billion and $1.1 billion, respectively. These amounts were excluded as reimbursement of insured amounts is proceeding normally.

131

Other consumer impaired loans

The tables below set forth information about the Firm’s other consumer impaired loans, including risk-rated business banking and auto loans that have been placed on nonaccrual status, and any loan that has been modified in a TDR.

	Auto				Business banking				Total other consumer(c)
	March 31,		December 31,		March 31,		December 31,		March 31,		December 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
Impaired loans
With an allowance	$	98	$	102	$	769	$	774	$	867	$	876
Without an allowance(a)		—		—		—		—		—		—
Total impaired loans	$	98	$	102	$	769	$	774	$	867	$	876
Allowance for loan losses related to impaired loans	$	16	$	16	$	236	$	248	$	252	$	264
Unpaid principal balance of impaired loans(b)		131		132		894		899		1,025		1,031
Impaired loans on nonaccrual status		47		50		631		647		678		697

(a)	When discounted cash flows, collateral value or market price equals or exceeds the recorded investment in the loan, then the loan does not require an allowance. This typically occurs when the impaired loans have been partially charged off and/or there have been interest payments received and applied to the loan balance.
(b)	Represents the contractual amount of principal owed at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010. The unpaid principal balance differs from the impaired loan balances due to various factors, including charge-offs; interest payments received and applied to the principal balance; net deferred loan fees or costs; and unamortized discounts or premiums on purchased loans.
(c)	There were no impaired student and other loans at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010.

132

The following table presents average impaired loans.

Three months ended March 31,	Average impaired loans(b)
(in millions)	2011		2010
Auto	$	99	$	127
Business banking		772		510
Total other consumer(a)	$	871	$	637

(a)	There were no student and other loans modified in TDRs at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010.
(b)	The related interest income on impaired loans, including those on cash basis, was not material for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010.

The following table provides information about the Firm’s other consumer loans modified in TDRs. These TDR loans are included as impaired loans in the tables above.

	Auto				Business banking				Total other consumer(c)
	March 31,		December 31,		March 31,		December 31,		March 31,		December 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
Loans modified in troubled debt restructurings(a)(b)	$	90	$	91	$	408	$	395	$	498	$	486
TDRs on nonaccrual status		39		39		270		268		309		307

(a)	These modifications generally provided interest rate concessions to the borrower or deferral of principal repayments.
(b)	Additional commitments to lend to borrowers whose loans have been modified in TDRs as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, were immaterial.
(c)	There were no student and other loans modified in TDRs at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010.

133

Purchased credit-impaired (“PCI”) loans

For a detailed discussion of PCI loans, including the related accounting policies, see Note 14 on pages 220–238 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Residential real estate — PCI loans

The table below sets forth information about the Firm’s consumer, excluding credit card PCI loans.

	Home equity						Prime mortgage
	March 31,			December 31,			March 31,			December 31,
(in millions, except ratios)	2011			2010			2011			2010
Carrying value(a)	$	23,973		$	24,459		$	16,725		$	17,322
Related allowance for loan losses(b)		1,583			1,583			1,766			1,766
Loan delinquency (based on unpaid principal balance)
Current and less than 30 days past due	$	24,956		$	25,783		$	12,632		$	13,035
30–149 days past due		1,193			1,348			1,285			1,468
150 or more days past due		1,248			1,181			4,238			4,425
Total loans	$	27,397		$	28,312		$	18,155		$	18,928
% of 30+ days past due to total loans		8.91	%		8.93	%		30.42	%		31.13	%
Current estimated LTV ratios (based on unpaid principal balance)(c)(d)
Greater than 125% and refreshed FICO scores:
Equal to or greater than 660	$	6,466		$	6,324		$	2,424		$	2,400
Less than 660		4,065			4,052			2,897			2,744
101% to 125% and refreshed FICO scores:
Equal to or greater than 660		5,804			6,097			3,517			3,815
Less than 660		2,584			2,701			2,904			3,011
80% to 100% and refreshed FICO scores:
Equal to or greater than 660		3,685			4,019			1,757			1,970
Less than 660		1,378			1,483			1,749			1,857
Lower than 80% and refreshed FICO scores:
Equal to or greater than 660		2,379			2,539			1,323			1,443
Less than 660		1,036			1,097			1,584			1,688
Total unpaid principal balance	$	27,397		$	28,312		$	18,155		$	18,928
Geographic region (based on unpaid principal balance)
California	$	16,466		$	17,012		$	10,405		$	10,891
New York		1,276			1,316			1,086			1,111
Texas		508			525			184			194
Florida		2,521			2,595			1,467			1,519
Illinois		607			627			550			562
Ohio		36			38			88			91
New Jersey		520			540			478			486
Michigan		91			95			262			279
Arizona		521			539			330			359
Washington		1,486			1,535			432			451
All other		3,365			3,490			2,873			2,985
Total unpaid principal balance	$	27,397		$	28,312		$	18,155		$	18,928

(a)	Carrying value includes the effect of fair value adjustments that were applied to the consumer PCI portfolio at the date of acquisition.
(b)	Management concluded as part of the Firm’s regular assessment of the PCI loan pools that it was probable that higher expected principal credit losses would result in a decrease in expected cash flows. As a result, an allowance for loan losses for impairment of these pools has been recognized.
(c)	Represents the aggregate unpaid principal balance of loans divided by the estimated current property value. Current property values are estimated, at a minimum, quarterly, based on home valuation models utilizing nationally recognized home price index valuation estimates incorporating actual data to the extent available and forecasted data where actual data is not available. These property values do not represent actual appraised loan level collateral values; as such, the resulting ratios are necessarily imprecise and should be viewed as estimates. Current estimated combined LTV for junior lien home equity loans considers all available lien positions related to the property.
(d)	Refreshed FICO scores represent each borrower’s most recent credit score obtained by the Firm. The Firm obtains refreshed FICO scores at least quarterly.

134

(table continued from previous page)

Subprime mortgage						Option ARMs						Total PCI
March 31,			December 31,			March 31,			December 31,			March 31,			December 31,
2011			2010			2011			2010			2011			2010
$	5,276		$	5,398		$	24,791		$	25,584		$	70,765		$	72,763
	98			98			1,494			1,494			4,941			4,941
$	4,352		$	4,312		$	18,317		$	18,672		$	60,257		$	61,802
	833			1,020			1,932			2,215			5,243			6,051
	2,660			2,710			9,310			9,904			17,456			18,220
$	7,845		$	8,042		$	29,559		$	30,791		$	82,956		$	86,073
	44.53	%		46.38	%		38.03	%		39.36	%		27.36	%		28.20	%
$	465		$	432		$	2,737		$	2,681		$	12,092		$	11,837
	2,174			2,129			6,315			6,330			15,451			15,255
	411			424			4,098			4,292			13,830			14,628
	1,637			1,663			4,814			5,005			11,939			12,380
	336			374			3,763			4,152			9,541			10,515
	1,380			1,477			3,396			3,551			7,903			8,368
	177			186			2,087			2,281			5,966			6,449
	1,265			1,357			2,349			2,499			6,234			6,641
$	7,845		$	8,042		$	29,559		$	30,791		$	82,956		$	86,073
$	1,889		$	1,971		$	15,430		$	16,130		$	44,190		$	46,004
	731			736			1,660			1,703			4,753			4,866
	428			435			151			155			1,271			1,309
	896			906			3,762			3,916			8,646			8,936
	432			438			753			760			2,342			2,387
	120			122			123			131			367			382
	313			316			1,039			1,064			2,350			2,406
	204			214			309			345			866			933
	154			165			482			528			1,487			1,591
	176			178			727			745			2,821			2,909
	2,502			2,561			5,123			5,314			13,863			14,350
$	7,845		$	8,042		$	29,559		$	30,791		$	82,956		$	86,073

135

The table below sets forth the accretable yield activity for the Firm’s PCI consumer loans for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, and represents the Firm’s estimate of gross interest income expected to be earned over the remaining life of the PCI loan portfolios. This table excludes the cost to fund the PCI portfolios, and therefore does not represent net interest income expected to be earned on these portfolios.

Three months ended March 31	Total PCI
(in millions, except ratios)	2011			2010
Balance, January 1	$	19,097		$	25,544
Accretion into interest income		(704	)		(886	)
Changes in interest rates on variable rate loans		(32	)		(394	)
Other changes in expected cash flows(a)		455			(3,693	)
Balance, March 31	$	18,816		$	20,571
Accretable yield percentage		4.29	%		4.57	%

(a) Other changes in expected cash flows may vary from period to period as the Firm continues to refine its cash flow model and periodically updates model assumptions. For the three months ended March 31, 2011, other changes in expected cash flows were principally driven by changes in prepayment assumptions. For the three months ended March 31, 2010, other changes in expected cash flows were principally driven by changes in prepayment assumptions, as well as reclassification to the nonaccretable difference. Changes to prepayment assumptions change the expected remaining life of the portfolio, which drives changes in expected future interest cash collections. Such changes do not have a significant impact on the accretable yield percentage.

The factors that most significantly affect estimates of gross cash flows expected to be collected, and accordingly the accretable yield balance, include: (i) changes in the benchmark interest rate indices for variable rate products such as option ARM and home equity loans; and (ii) changes in prepayment assumptions.

Since the date of purchase, the decrease in the accretable yield percentage has been primarily related to a decrease in interest rates on variable-rate loans and, to a lesser extent, extended loan liquidation periods. Certain events, such as extended loan liquidation periods, affect the timing of expected cash flows but not the amount of cash expected to be received (i.e., the accretable yield balance). Extended loan liquidation periods reduce the accretable yield percentage because the same accretable yield balance is recognized against a higher-than-expected loan balance over a longer-than-expected period of time.

136

Credit card loans

The credit card portfolio segment includes credit card loans originated and purchased by the Firm, including those acquired in the Washington Mutual transaction. Delinquency rates are the primary credit quality indicator for credit card loans. In addition to delinquency rates, the geographic distribution of the loans provides insight as to the credit quality of the portfolio based on the regional economy.

The borrower’s credit score is another general indicator of credit quality. Because the credit score tends to be a lagging indicator of credit quality, the Firm does not use credit scores as a primary indicator of credit quality. For more information on credit quality indicators, see Note 14 on pages 220–238 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report. The Firm generally originates new card accounts to prime consumer borrowers. However, certain cardholders’ refreshed FICO scores may change over time, depending on the performance of the cardholder and changes in credit score technology.

The table below sets forth information about the Firm’s Credit Card loans.

	Chase, excluding						Washington Mutual
	Washington Mutual portfolio(c)						portfolio(c)						Total credit card
	March 31,			December 31,			March 31,			December 31,			March 31,			December 31,
(in millions, except ratios)	2011			2010			2011			2010			2011			2010
Loan delinquency(a)
Current and less than 30 days past due and still accruing	$	108,748		$	117,248		$	11,585		$	12,670		$	120,333		$	129,918
30–89 days past due and still accruing		1,693			2,092			350			459			2,043			2,551
90 or more days past due and still accruing		1,940			2,449			473			604			2,413			3,053
Nonaccrual loans		2			2			—			—			2			2
Total retained loans	$	112,383		$	121,791		$	12,408		$	13,733		$	124,791		$	135,524
Loan delinquency ratios
% of 30 plus days past due to total retained loans		3.23	%		3.73	%		6.63	%		7.74	%		3.57	%		4.14	%
% of 90 plus days past due to total retained loans		1.73			2.01			3.81			4.40			1.93			2.25
Credit card loans by geographic region
California	$	14,269		$	15,454		$	2,391		$	2,650		$	16,660		$	18,104
New York		8,839			9,540			933			1,032			9,772			10,572
Texas		8,700			9,217			915			1,006			9,615			10,223
Florida		6,240			6,724			1,049			1,165			7,289			7,889
Illinois		6,472			7,077			489			542			6,961			7,619
New Jersey		4,628			5,070			446			494			5,074			5,564
Ohio		4,550			5,035			362			401			4,912			5,436
Pennsylvania		4,073			4,521			383			424			4,456			4,945
Michigan		3,569			3,956			246			273			3,815			4,229
Virginia		2,802			3,020			267			295			3,069			3,315
Georgia		2,599			2,834			359			398			2,958			3,232
Washington		1,932			2,053			397			438			2,329			2,491
All other		43,710			47,290			4,171			4,615			47,881			51,905
Total retained loans	$	112,383		$	121,791		$	12,408		$	13,733		$	124,791		$	135,524
Percentage of portfolio based on carrying value with estimated refreshed FICO scores(b)
Equal to or greater than 660		80.9	%		80.6	%		58.2	%		56.4	%		78.4	%		77.9	%
Less than 660		19.1			19.4			41.8			43.6			21.6			22.1

(a)	The Firm’s policy is generally to exempt credit card loans from being placed on nonaccrual status as permitted by regulatory guidance. Under guidance issued by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (“FFIEC”), credit card loans are charged off by the end of the month in which the account becomes 180 days past due or within 60 days from receiving notification about a specified event (e.g., bankruptcy of the borrower), whichever is earlier.
(b)	Refreshed FICO scores are estimated based on a statistically significant random sample of credit card accounts in the credit card portfolio for the period shown. The Firm obtains refreshed FICO scores at least quarterly.
(c)	Includes billed finance charges and fees net of an allowance for uncollectible amounts.

137

Credit card impaired loans

For a detailed discussion of impaired credit card loans, including credit card loan modifications, see Note 14 on pages 220—238 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

The tables below set forth information about the Firm’s impaired credit card loans. All of these loans are considered to be impaired as they have been modified in TDRs.

	Chase, excluding
	Washington Mutual				Washington Mutual
	portfolio				portfolio				Total credit card
	March 31,		December 31,		March 31,		December 31,		March 31,		December 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
Impaired loans with an allowance(a)(b)
Credit card loans with modified payment terms(c)	$	6,303	$	6,685	$	1,472	$	1,570	$	7,775	$	8,255
Modified credit card loans that have reverted to pre-modification payment terms(d)		1,197		1,439		264		311		1,461		1,750
Total impaired loans	$	7,500	$	8,124	$	1,736	$	1,881	$	9,236	$	10,005
Allowance for loan losses related to impaired loans	$	3,013	$	3,175	$	806	$	894	$	3,819	$	4,069

(a)	The carrying value and the unpaid principal balance are the same for credit card impaired loans.
(b)	There were no impaired loans without an allowance.
(c)	Represents credit card loans outstanding to borrowers then enrolled in a credit card modification program.
(d)	Represents credit card loans that were modified in TDRs but that have subsequently reverted back to the loans’ pre-modification payment terms. At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, of the $1.5 billion and $1.8 billion total loan amount, respectively, approximately $934 million and $1.2 billion, respectively, of loans have reverted back to the pre-modification payment terms of the loans due to noncompliance with the terms of the modified loans. A substantial portion of these loans is expected to be charged-off in accordance with the Firm’s standard charge-off policy. The remaining $527 million and $590 million at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively, of these loans are to borrowers who have successfully completed a short-term modification program. The Firm continues to report these loans as TDRs since the borrowers’ credit lines remain closed.

The following table presents average balances of impaired credit card loans and interest income recognized on those loans.

Three months ended March 31,	Average impaired loans				Interest income on impaired loans(a)
(in millions)	2011		2010		2011		2010
Chase, excluding Washington Mutual portfolio	$	7,709	$	8,911	$	101	$	119
Washington Mutual portfolio		1,785		1,971		29		31
Total credit card	$	9,494	$	10,882	$	130	$	150

(a) As permitted by regulatory guidance, credit card loans are generally exempt from being placed on nonaccrual status; accordingly, interest and fees related to credit card loans continue to accrue until the loan is charged off or paid in full. However, the Firm separately establishes an allowance for the estimated uncollectible portion of billed and accrued interest and fee income on credit card loans.

138

NOTE 14 — ALLOWANCE FOR CREDIT LOSSES

For detailed discussion of the allowance for credit losses and the related accounting policies, see Note 15 on pages 239-243 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Allowance for credit losses and loans and lending-related commitments by impairment methodology

The table below summarizes information about the allowance for loan losses and the loans by impairment methodology.

	2011												2010
Three months				Consumer,												Consumer,
ended March 31,				excluding												excluding
(in millions)	Wholesale			credit card			Credit Card			Total			Wholesale			credit card			Credit Card			Total
Allowance for loan losses
Beginning balance at January 1,	$	4,761		$	16,471		$	11,034		$	32,266		$	7,145		$	14,785		$	9,672		$	31,602
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principles(a)		—			—			—			—			14			127			7,353			7,494
Gross charge-offs		253			1,460			2,631			4,344			1,014			2,555			4,882			8,451
Gross (recoveries)		(88	)		(131	)		(405	)		(624	)		(55	)		(116	)		(370	)		(541	)
Net charge-offs		165			1,329			2,226			3,720			959			2,439			4,512			7,910
Provision for loan losses		(359	)		1,329			226			1,196			(257	)		3,736			3,512			6,991
Other		(3	)		4			7			8			(1	)		3			7			9
Ending balance at March 31	$	4,234		$	16,475		$	9,041		$	29,750		$	5,942		$	16,212		$	16,032		$	38,186
Allowance for loan losses by impairment methodology
Asset-specific(b)(c)(d)	$	1,030		$	1,067		$	3,819		$	5,916		$	1,557		$	911		$	5,402		$	7,870
Formula-based(d)		3,204			10,467			5,222			18,893			4,385			12,490			10,630			27,505
PCI		—			4,941			—			4,941			—			2,811			—			2,811
Total allowance for loan losses	$	4,234		$	16,475		$	9,041		$	29,750		$	5,942		$	16,212		$	16,032		$	38,186
Loans by impairment methodology
Asset-specific	$	4,498		$	7,254		$	9,236		$	20,988		$	6,286		$	4,406		$	11,020		$	21,712
Formula-based		225,094			242,979			115,555			583,628			203,818			263,641			138,240			605,699
PCI		56			70,765			—			70,821			107			79,323			—			79,430
Total retained loans	$	229,648		$	320,998		$	124,791		$	675,437		$	210,211		$	347,370		$	149,260		$	706,841

(a)	Effective January 1, 2010, the Firm adopted accounting guidance related to VIEs. Upon adoption of the guidance, the Firm consolidated its Firm-sponsored credit card securitization trusts, its Firm-administered multi-seller conduits and certain other consumer loan securitization entities, primarily mortgage-related. As a result, $7.4 billion, $14 million and $127 million, respectively, of allowance for loan losses were recorded on-balance sheet with the consolidation of these entities. For further discussion, see Note 16 on pages 244–259 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.
(b)	Relates to risk-rated loans that have been placed on nonaccrual status and loans that have been modified in a TDR.
(c)	At March 31, 2011 and 2010, the asset-specific consumer, excluding credit card allowance for loan losses included TDR reserves of $970 million and $754 million, respectively. The asset-specific credit card allowance for loan losses is related to loans modified in TDRs.
(d)	Prior period has been revised to reflect the reclassification of the Firm’s allowance for loan losses on all impaired credit card loans from formula-based into asset-specific allowance.

139

The table below summarizes information about the allowance for lending-related commitments and lending-related commitments by impairment methodology.

	2011											2010
				Consumer,											Consumer,
Three months ended March 31,				excluding											excluding
(in millions)	Wholesale			credit card			Credit Card		Total			Wholesale			credit card			Credit Card		Total
Allowance for lending-related commitments
Beginning balance at January 1,	$	711		$	6		$	—	$	717		$	927		$	12		$	—	$	939
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principles(a)		—			—			—		—			(18	)		—			—		(18	)
Provision for lending-related commitments		(27	)		—			—		(27	)		21			(2	)		—		19
Other		(2	)		—			—		(2	)		—			—			—		—
Ending balance at March 31	$	682		$	6		$	—	$	688		$	930		$	10		$	—	$	940
Allowance for lending-related commitments by impairment methodology
Asset-specific	$	184		$	—		$	—	$	184		$	296		$	—		$	—	$	296
Formula-based		498			6			—		504			634			10			—		644
Total allowance for lending-related commitments	$	682		$	6		$	—	$	688		$	930		$	10		$	—	$	940
Lending-related commitments by impairment methodology
Asset-specific	$	895		$	—		$	—	$	895		$	1,552		$	—		$	—	$	1,552
Formula-based		354,666			64,560			565,813		985,039			325,369			72,243			556,207		953,819
Total lending-related commitments	$	355,561		$	64,560		$	565,813	$	985,934		$	326,921		$	72,243		$	556,207	$	955,371
Impaired collateral-dependent loans
Net charge-offs	$	20		$	25		$	—	$	45		$	113		$	126		$	—	$	239
Loans measured at fair value of collateral less cost to sell		715			864	(b)		—		1,579			1,069			545	(b)		—		1,614

(a)	Effective January 1, 2010, the Firm adopted accounting guidance related to VIEs. Upon adoption of the guidance, the Firm consolidated its Firm-administered multi-seller conduits. As a result, related assets are now primarily recorded in loans and other assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(b)	Includes collateral-dependent residential mortgage loans that are charged off to the fair value of the underlying collateral. These loans are considered collateral-dependent under regulatory guidance because they involve modifications where an interest-only period is provided or a significant portion of principal is deferred.

140

NOTE 15 — VARIABLE INTEREST ENTITIES

For a further description of JPMorgan Chase’s accounting policies regarding consolidation of VIEs and a detailed discussion of the Firm’s principal involvement with VIEs, see Note 1 on pages 164—165, and Note 16 on pages 244—259, respectively, of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

The following table summarizes the most significant types of Firm-sponsored VIEs by business segment.

			Form 10-Q
Line-of-Business	Transaction Type	Activity	page reference
Card Services	Credit card securitization trusts	Securitization of both originated and purchased credit card receivables		141
RFS	Mortgage and other securitization trusts	Securitization of originated and purchased residential mortgages, automobile and student loans	��	141-143
IB	Mortgage and other securitization trusts	Securitization of both originated and purchased residential and commercial mortgages, automobile and student loans		141-143
IB	Multi-seller conduits Investor intermediation activities:	Assist clients in accessing the financial markets in a cost-efficient manner and structures transactions to meet investor needs		143
IB	Municipal bond vehicles			143-144
	Credit-related note and asset swap vehicles			144

The Firm also invests in and provides financing and other services to VIEs sponsored by third parties, as described on page 144 of this Note and on page 253 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Significant Firm-sponsored variable interest entities

Credit card securitizations

For a more detailed discussion of JPMorgan Chase’s involvement with credit card securitizations, see pages 245—246 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

As a result of the Firm’s continuing involvement, the Firm is considered to be the primary beneficiary of the Firm-sponsored credit card securitization trusts. This includes the Firm’s primary card securitization trust, Chase Issuance Trust. The Firm consolidated $58.4 billion and $68.5 billion of assets held by Firm-administered credit-card securitization trusts and $37.7 billion and $44.3 billion of beneficial interests issued to third parties at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

The underlying securitized credit card receivables and other assets are available only for payment of the beneficial interests issued by the securitization trusts; they are not available to pay the Firm’s other obligations or the claims of the Firm’s other creditors.

Firm-sponsored mortgage and other securitization trusts

For a detailed description of the Firm’s involvement with Firm-sponsored mortgage and other securitization trusts, as well as accounting treatment, see Note 16 on page 246 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

The following table presents the total unpaid principal amount of assets held in JPMorgan Chase—sponsored securitization entities in which the Firm has continuing involvement, including those that are consolidated or not consolidated by the Firm. Continuing involvement includes servicing the loans; holding senior interests or subordinated interests; recourse or guarantee arrangements; and derivative transactions. In certain instances, the Firm’s only continuing involvement is servicing the loans. In the table below, the amount of beneficial interests held by JPMorgan Chase does not equal the assets held in nonconsolidated VIEs because of the existence of beneficial interests held by third parties, which are reflected at their current outstanding par amounts; and because a portion of the Firm’s retained interests (trading assets and AFS securities) are reflected at their fair values. See Securitization activity on pages 146—148 of this Note for further information regarding the Firm’s cash flows with and interests retained in nonconsolidated VIEs.

141

							JPMorgan Chase interest in securitized assets
	Principal amount outstanding						in nonconsolidated VIEs(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)
					Assets held in
					nonconsolidated
	Total assets		Assets held in		securitization VIEs						Total interests
March 31, 2011(a)	held by		consolidated		with continuing		Trading		AFS		held by
(in billions)	securitization VIEs		securitization VIEs		involvement		assets		securities		JPMorgan Chase
Securitization-related
Residential mortgage:
Prime(b)	$	145.8	$	1.4	$	138.1	$	0.7	$	—	$	0.7
Subprime		42.9		1.6		39.6		—		—		—
Option ARMs		35.0		0.3		34.7		—		—		—
Commercial and other(c)		146.7		—		92.2		1.6		0.7		2.3
Student		4.4		4.4		—		—		—		—
Total	$	374.8	$	7.7	$	304.6	$	2.3	$	0.7	$	3.0

							JPMorgan Chase interest in securitized assets
	Principal amount outstanding						in nonconsolidated VIEs(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)
					Assets held in
					nonconsolidated
	Total assets		Assets held in		securitization VIEs						Total interests
December 31, 2010(a)	held by		consolidated		with continuing		Trading		AFS		held by
(in billions)	securitization VIEs		securitization VIEs		involvement		assets		securities		JPMorgan Chase
Securitization-related
Residential mortgage:
Prime(b)	$	153.1	$	2.2	$	143.8	$	0.7	$	—	$	0.7
Subprime		44.0		1.6		40.7		—		—		—
Option ARMs		36.1		0.3		35.8		—		—		—
Commercial and other(c)		153.4		—		106.2		2.0		0.9		2.9
Student		4.5		4.5		—		—		—		—
Total	$	391.1	$	8.6	$	326.5	$	2.7	$	0.9	$	3.6

(a)	Excludes loan sales to U.S. government agencies. See page 147 of this Note for information on the Firm’s loan sales to U.S. government agencies.
(b)	Includes Alt-A loans.
(c)	Consists of securities backed by commercial loans (predominantly real estate) and non-mortgage-related consumer receivables purchased from third parties. The Firm generally does not retain a residual interest in its sponsored commercial mortgage securitization transactions. Includes co-sponsored commercial securitizations and, therefore, includes non–JPMorgan Chase–originated commercial mortgage loans.
(d)	Excludes retained servicing (for a discussion of MSRs, see Note 16 on pages 149–152 of this Form 10-Q) and securities retained from loan sales to U.S. government agencies.
(e)	Excludes senior and subordinated securities of $130 million and $67 million, respectively, at March 31, 2011, and $182 million and $18 million, respectively, at December 31, 2010, which the Firm purchased in connection with IB’s secondary market-making activities.
(f)	Excludes interest rate and foreign exchange derivatives primarily used to manage the interest rate and foreign exchange risks of the securitization entities. See Note 5 on pages 107–113 of this Form 10-Q for further information on derivatives.
(g)	Includes interests held in re-securitization transactions.
(h)	As of both March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, 66% of the Firm’s retained securitization interests, which are carried at fair value, were risk-rated “A” or better, on an S&P-equivalent basis. This includes $207 million and $157 million of investment-grade and $495 million and $552 million of noninvestment-grade retained interests in prime residential mortgages at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively, and $2.0 billion and $2.6 billion of investment-grade and $259 million and $250 million of noninvestment-grade retained interests in commercial and other securitization trusts.

142

Re-securitizations

The Firm also engages in certain re-securitization transactions in which debt securities are transferred to a VIE in exchange for new beneficial interests. These transfers occur to both agency (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) and nonagency (private-label) sponsored VIEs, which may be backed by either residential or commercial mortgages and are often structured on behalf of clients. As of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, the Firm did not consolidate any agency re-securitizations, as it did not have the power to direct the significant activities of the trust. As of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively, the Firm consolidated $387 million and $477 million of assets, and $167 million and $230 million of liabilities of private-label re-securitizations, as the Firm had both the power to direct the significant activities of, and retained an interest that is deemed to be significant in, the trust. For other nonconsolidated private-label re-securitizations, the Firm shares control over the resecuritization VIEs (i.e., established the VIE jointly with the investors) and therefore did not have unilateral ability to direct the significant activities of the entity. During the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, the Firm transferred $8.8 billion and $6.5 billion, respectively, of securities to agency VIEs, and $192 million and $383 million, respectively, of securities to private-label VIEs. At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, the Firm held approximately $2.8 billion and $3.5 billion of interests in nonconsolidated agency re-securitization entities, and $49 million and $46 million of senior and subordinated interests in nonconsolidated private-label re-securitization entities. See page 148 of this Note for further information on interests held in nonconsolidated securitization VIEs.

Multi-seller conduits

For a more detailed description of JPMorgan Chase’s principal involvement with Firm-administered, multi-seller conduits, see Note 16 on pages 249–250 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

As a result of the Firm’s continuing involvement, the Firm consolidates its Firm-administered multi-seller conduits, as the Firm has both the power to direct the significant activities of the conduits and a potentially significant economic interest. The Firm consolidated $20.6 billion and $21.7 billion of assets held by Firm-administered multi-seller conduits and $20.5 billion and $21.6 billion of beneficial interests in commercial paper issued to third parties at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

The Firm provides deal-specific liquidity as well as program-wide liquidity and credit enhancement to the Firm-administered multi-seller conduits, which have been eliminated in consolidation. The Firm-administered multi-seller conduits then provide certain of their clients with lending-related commitments. The unfunded portion of these commitments was $10.3 billion and $10.0 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively, and are included as off-balance sheet lending-related commitments. For more information on off-balance sheet lending-related commitments, see Note 21 on pages 156–159 of this Form 10-Q.

VIEs associated with investor intermediation activities

Municipal bond vehicles

For a more detailed description of JPMorgan Chase’s principal involvement with municipal bond vehicles, see Note 16 on pages 250–251 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

The Firm’s exposure to nonconsolidated municipal bond VIEs at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, including the ratings profile of the VIEs’ assets, was as follows.

	Fair value of assets						Maximum
(in billions)	held by VIEs		Liquidity facilities(a)		Excess/(deficit)(b)		exposure
Nonconsolidated municipal bond vehicles
March 31, 2011	$	12.7	$	8.2	$	4.5	$	8.2
December 31, 2010		13.7		8.8		4.9		8.8

	Ratings profile of VIE assets(c)
	Investment-grade								Noninvestment-grade		Fair value of		Wt. avg.
(in billions, except											assets held		expected life
where otherwise noted)	AAA to AAA-		AA+ to AA-		A+ to A-		BBB to BBB-		BB+ and below		by VIEs		of assets (years)
Nonconsolidated municipal bond vehicles
March 31, 2011	$	2.0	$	10.1	$	0.6	$	—	$	—	$	12.7		17.6
December 31, 2010		1.9		11.2		0.6		—		—		13.7		15.5

(a)	The Firm may serve as credit enhancement provider to municipal bond vehicles in which it serves as liquidity provider. The Firm provided insurance on underlying municipal bonds, in the form of letters of credit, of $10 million at both March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010.
(b)	Represents the excess/(deficit) of the fair values of municipal bond assets available to repay the liquidity facilities, if drawn.
(c)	The ratings scale is based on the Firm’s internal risk ratings and is presented on an S&P-equivalent basis.

143

The Firm consolidated $5.9 billion and $4.6 billion of municipal bond vehicles as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively, due to the Firm owning the residual interests.

Credit-related note and asset swap vehicles

For a more detailed description of JPMorgan Chase’s principal involvement with credit-related note and asset swap vehicles, see Note 16 on pages 244–259 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Exposure to nonconsolidated credit-related note and asset swap VIEs at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, was as follows.

							Par value
	Net derivative		Trading		Total		of collateral
March 31, 2011 (in billions)	receivables		assets(a)		exposure(b)		held by VIEs(c)
Credit-related notes
Static structure	$	0.5	$	—	$	0.5	$	10.8
Managed structure		2.1		—		2.1		10.1
Total credit-related notes		2.6		—		2.6		20.9
Asset swaps		0.3		—		0.3		7.7
Total	$	2.9	$	—	$	2.9	$	28.6

							Par value
	Net derivative		Trading		Total		of collateral
December 31, 2010 (in billions)	receivables		assets(a)		exposure(b)		held by VIEs(c)
Credit- related notes
Static structure	$	1.0	$	—	$	1.0	$	9.5
Managed structure		2.8		—		2.8		10.7
Total credit-related notes		3.8		—		3.8		20.2
Asset swaps		0.3		—		0.3		7.6
Total	$	4.1	$	—	$	4.1	$	27.8

(a)	Trading assets principally comprise notes issued by VIEs, which from time to time are held as part of the termination of a deal or to support limited market-making.
(b)	On–balance sheet exposure that includes net derivative receivables and trading assets — debt and equity instruments.
(c)	The Firm’s maximum exposure arises through the derivatives executed with the VIEs; the exposure varies over time with changes in the fair value of the derivatives. The Firm relies on the collateral held by the VIEs to pay any amounts due under the derivatives; the vehicles are structured at inception so that the par value of the collateral is expected to be sufficient to pay amounts due under the derivative contracts.

The Firm consolidated credit-related note vehicles with collateral fair values of $137 million and $142 million, respectively, and asset swap vehicles with collateral fair values of zero at both March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010. The Firm consolidated these vehicles because in its role as secondary market-maker, it held positions in these entities that provided the Firm with control of certain vehicles.

VIEs sponsored by third parties

The Firm also invests in and provides financing and other services to VIEs sponsored by third parties, as described on page 253 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Investment in a third-party credit card securitization trust

The Firm holds two interests in a third-party-sponsored VIE, which is a credit card securitization trust that owns credit card receivables issued by a national retailer. The Firm is not the primary beneficiary of the trust. The Firm’s interest in the VIEs include investments classified as AFS securities that had a fair value of $3.2 billion and $3.1 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively, and other interests which are classified as loans and have a fair value of approximately $1.0 billion at both March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010. For more information on AFS securities and loans, see Notes 11 and 13 on pages 116–120 and 122–138, respectively, of this Form 10-Q.

144

Consolidated VIE assets and liabilities

The following table presents information on assets and liabilities related to VIEs consolidated by the Firm as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010.

	Assets								Liabilities
	Trading assets
March 31, 2011	debt and equity						Total		Beneficial interests
(in billions)	instruments		Loans		Other(a)		assets(b)		in VIE assets(c)		Other(d)		Total liabilities
VIE program type
Firm-sponsored credit card trusts	$	—	$	57.0	$	1.4	$	58.4	$	37.7	$	—	$	37.7
Firm-administered multi-seller conduits		—		20.2		0.4		20.6		20.5		—		20.5
Mortgage securitization entities(e)		1.0		2.7		—		3.7		2.0		1.5		3.5
Other(f)		9.3		4.3		1.6		15.2		10.7		0.3		11.0
Total	$	10.3	$	84.2	$	3.4	$	97.9	$	70.9	$	1.8	$	72.7

	Assets								Liabilities
	Trading assets
December 31, 2010	debt and equity						Total		Beneficial interests
(in billions)	instruments		Loans		Other(a)		assets(b)		in VIE assets(c)		Other(d)		Total liabilities
VIE program type
Firm-sponsored credit card trusts	$	—	$	67.2	$	1.3	$	68.5	$	44.3	$	—	$	44.3
Firm-administered multi-seller conduits		—		21.1		0.6		21.7		21.6		0.1		21.7
Mortgage securitization entities(e)		1.8		2.9		—		4.7		2.4		1.6		4.0
Other(f)		8.0		4.4		1.6		14.0		9.3		0.3		9.6
Total	$	9.8	$	95.6	$	3.5	$	108.9	$	77.6	$	2.0	$	79.6

(a)	Included assets classified as cash, derivative receivables, AFS securities and other assets within the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(b)	The assets of the consolidated VIEs included in the program types above are used to settle the liabilities of those entities. The difference between total assets and total liabilities recognized for consolidated VIEs represents the Firm’s interest in the consolidated VIEs for each program type.
(c)	The interest-bearing beneficial-interest liabilities issued by consolidated VIEs are classified in the line item on the Consolidated Balance Sheets 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. Included in beneficial interests in VIE assets are long-term beneficial interests of $45.6 billion and $52.6 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively. The maturities of the long-term beneficial interests as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, were as follows: $7.5 billion and $13.9 billion under one year, $29.1 billion and $29.0 billion between one and five years, and $9.0 billion and $9.7 billion over five years.
(d)	Included liabilities classified as accounts payable and other liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(e)	Includes residential and commercial mortgage securitizations as well as re-securitizations.
(f)	Primarily comprised of municipal bond vehicles and student loans.

Supplemental information on loan securitizations

The Firm securitizes and sells a variety of loans, including residential mortgage, credit card, automobile, student and commercial (primarily related to real estate) loans, as well as debt securities. The primary purposes of these securitization transactions are to satisfy investor demand and to generate liquidity for the Firm.

145

Securitization activity

The following tables provide information related to the Firm’s securitization activities for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, related to assets held in JPMorgan Chase—sponsored securitization entities that were not consolidated by the Firm, as sale accounting was achieved based on the accounting rules in effect at the time of the securitization. For the three month period ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, there were no mortgage loans that were securitized, except for commercial and other in 2011, and there were no cash flows from the Firm to the SPEs related to recourse or guarantee arrangements.

	Three months ended March 31, 2011
	Residential mortgage
							Commercial
(in millions)	Prime(e)		Subprime		Option ARMs		and other
Principal securitized	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	1,493
All cash flows during the period(a):
Proceeds from new securitizations(b)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	1,558
Servicing fees collected		64		59		103		1
Purchases of previously transferred financial assets (or the underlying collateral)(c)		379		6		6		—
Cash flows received on the interests that continue to be held by the Firm(d)		61		5		1		47

	Three months ended March 31, 2010
	Residential mortgage
							Commercial
(in millions)	Prime(e)		Subprime		Option ARMs		and other
All cash flows during the period(a):
Servicing fees collected	$	75	$	46	$	117	$	1
Purchases of previously transferred financial assets (or the underlying collateral)(c)		48		—		—		—
Cash flows received on the interests that continue to be held by the Firm(d)		159		4		7		40

(a)	Excludes sales for which the Firm did not securitize the loan (including loans sold to Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).
(b)	Includes $1.6 billion and zero of proceeds from new securitizations received as securities for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. These securities were predominantly classified as level 2 of the fair value measurement hierarchy.
(c)	Includes cash paid by the Firm to reacquire assets from the off–balance sheet, nonconsolidated entities — for example, servicer clean-up calls.
(d)	Includes cash flows received on retained interests — including, for example, principal repayments and interest payments.
(e)	Includes Alt-A loans and re-securitization transactions.

146

Loans sold to agencies and other third-party sponsored securitization entities

In addition to the amounts reported in the securitization activity tables above, the Firm, in the normal course of business, sells originated and purchased mortgage loans, predominantly to Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “Agencies”). These loans are sold primarily for the purpose of securitization by the Agencies, which also provide credit enhancement of the loans through certain guarantee provisions. The Firm does not consolidate these securitization vehicles, as it is not the primary beneficiary. In connection with these loan sales, the Firm makes certain representations and warranties. For additional information about the Firm’s loan sale- and securitization-related indemnifications, see Note 21 on pages 156–159 of this Form 10-Q.

For a more detailed description of JPMorgan Chase’s principal involvement with loans sold to government-sponsored agencies and other third-party sponsored securitization entities, see Note 16 on page 257 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

The following table summarizes the activities related to loans sold to U.S. government-sponsored agencies and third-party sponsored securitization entities.

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010
Carrying value of loans sold(a)(b)	$	39,247	$	35,374
Proceeds received from loan sales as cash		340		336
Proceeds received from loan sales as securities(c)		38,172		34,370
Total proceeds received from loan sales	$	38,512	$	34,706
Gains on loan sales		22		21

(a)	Predominantly to U.S. government agencies.
(b)	MSRs were excluded from the above table. See Note 16 on pages 149—152 of this Form 10-Q for further information on originated MSRs.
(c)	Predominantly includes securities from U.S. government agencies that are generally sold shortly after receipt.

As of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, loans repurchased, or loans with the option to repurchase, were $13.1 billion and $13.0 billion, respectively, primarily related to loans sold to U.S. government agencies. Additionally, real estate owned resulting from repurchases of loans sold to U.S. government agencies was $2.3 billion and $1.9 billion as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively. Substantially all of these loans and real estate owned continue to be insured or guaranteed by U.S. government agencies, and where applicable, reimbursement is proceeding normally.

147

JPMorgan Chase’s interest in securitized assets held at fair value

The following table outlines the key economic assumptions used to determine the fair value, as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, of certain of the Firm’s retained interests in nonconsolidated VIEs (other than MSRs), that are valued using modeling techniques. The table also outlines the sensitivities of those fair values to immediate 10% and 20% adverse changes in assumptions used to determine fair value. For a discussion of MSRs, see Note 16 on pages 149–152 of this Form 10-Q.

March 31, 2011	Residential mortgage			Commercial
(in millions, except rates and where otherwise noted)	Prime(a)			and other
JPMorgan Chase interests in securitized assets(b)(c)	$	702		$	2,271
Weighted-average life (in years)		6.6			2.7
Weighted-average constant prepayment rate(d)		6.7	%		—	%
	CPR			CPR
Impact of 10% adverse change	$	(2	)	$	—
Impact of 20% adverse change		(12	)		—
Weighted-average loss assumption		8.3	%		1.6	%
Impact of 10% adverse change	$	(1	)	$	(62	)
Impact of 20% adverse change		(11	)		(142	)
Weighted-average discount rate		11.6	%		20.5	%
Impact of 10% adverse change	$	(27	)	$	(54	)
Impact of 20% adverse change		(51	)		(103	)

December 31, 2010	Residential mortgage			Commercial
(in millions, except rates and where otherwise noted)	Prime(a)			and other
JPMorgan Chase interests in securitized assets(b)(c)	$	708		$	2,906
Weighted-average life (in years)		5.5			3.3
Weighted-average constant prepayment rate(d)		7.9	%		—	%
	CPR			CPR
Impact of 10% adverse change	$	(15	)	$	—
Impact of 20% adverse change		(27	)		—
Weighted-average loss assumption		5.2	%		2.1	%
Impact of 10% adverse change	$	(12	)	$	(76	)
Impact of 20% adverse change		(21	)		(151	)
Weighted-average discount rate		11.6	%		16.4	%
Impact of 10% adverse change	$	(26	)	$	(69	)
Impact of 20% adverse change		(47	)		(134	)

(a)	Includes retained interests in Alt-A loans and re-securitization transactions.
(b)	The Firm’s interests in subprime securitizations were $23 million and $14 million, as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Additionally, the Firm had interests in Option ARM securitizations of $29 million at both March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010.
(c)	Includes certain investments acquired in the secondary market but predominantly held for investment purposes.
(d)	CPR: constant prepayment rate.

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 the 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, which might counteract or magnify the sensitivities. The above sensitivities also do not reflect risk management practices the Firm may undertake to mitigate such risks.

148

Loan delinquencies and net charge-offs

The table below includes information about delinquencies, liquidation losses and components of off-balance sheet securitized financial assets as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010.

									Liquidation losses
	Credit exposure				90 days past due				Three months ended
	March 31,		Dec. 31,		March 31,		Dec. 31,		March 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010		2011		2010		2011		2010
Securitized loans(a)
Residential mortgage:
Prime mortgage(b)	$	138,064	$	143,764	$	32,924	$	33,093	$	1,490	$	1,689
Subprime mortgage		39,628		40,721		15,518		15,456		1,000		1,165
Option ARMs		34,648		35,786		10,733		10,788		443		589
Commercial and other		92,212		106,245		4,930		5,791		204		27
Total loans securitized(c)	$	304,552	$	326,516	$	64,105	$	65,128	$	3,137	$	3,470

(a)	Total assets held in securitization-related SPEs were $374.8 billion and $391.1 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively. The $304.6 billion and $326.5 billion of loans securitized at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively, excludes: $62.5 billion and $56.0 billion of securitized loans in which the Firm has no continuing involvement, and $7.7 billion and $8.6 billion of loan securitizations consolidated on the Firm’s Consolidated Balance Sheets at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.
(b)	Includes Alt-A loans.
(c)	Includes securitized loans that were previously recorded at fair value and classified as trading assets.

NOTE 16 — GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLE ASSETS

For a discussion of accounting policies related to goodwill and other intangible assets, see Note 17 on pages 260–263 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Goodwill and other intangible assets consist of the following.

(in millions)	March 31, 2011		December 31, 2010
Goodwill	$	48,856	$	48,854
Mortgage servicing rights		13,093		13,649
Other intangible assets:
Purchased credit card relationships	$	820	$	897
Other credit card–related intangibles		582		593
Core deposit intangibles		806		879
Other intangibles		1,649		1,670
Total other intangible assets	$	3,857	$	4,039

Goodwill

The following table presents goodwill attributed to the business segments.

(in millions)	March 31, 2011		December 31, 2010
Investment Bank	$	5,249	$	5,278
Retail Financial Services		16,807		16,813
Card Services		14,247		14,205
Commercial Banking		2,864		2,866
Treasury & Securities Services		1,669		1,680
Asset Management		7,643		7,635
Corporate/Private Equity		377		377
Total goodwill	$	48,856	$	48,854

The following table presents changes in the carrying amount of goodwill.

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011			2010
Balance at January 1,(a)	$	48,854		$	48,357
Changes during the period from:
Business combinations		(5	)		9
Dispositions		—			(19	)
Other(b)		7			12
Balance at March 31,(a)	$	48,856		$	48,359

(a)	Reflects gross goodwill balances as the Firm has not recognized any impairment losses to date.
(b)	Includes foreign currency translation adjustments and other tax-related adjustments.

149

Goodwill was not impaired at March 31, 2011, or December 31, 2010, nor was any goodwill written off due to impairment during the three month periods ended March 31, 2011 or 2010. During the three months ended March 31, 2011, the Firm reviewed current conditions and prior projections for all of its reporting units. In addition, the Firm updated the discounted cash flow valuations of its consumer lending businesses in RFS and Card Services (“CS”), as these businesses continue to have elevated risk for goodwill impairment due to their exposure to U.S. consumer credit risk and the effects of regulatory and legislative changes. As a result of these reviews, the Firm concluded that goodwill for these businesses and the Firm’s other reporting units was not impaired at March 31, 2011.

Mortgage servicing rights

Mortgage servicing rights represent the fair value of expected future cash flows for performing servicing activities for others. The fair value considers estimated future fees and ancillary revenues, offset by estimated costs to service the loans. The fair value of mortgage servicing rights naturally declines over time as net servicing cash flows are received, effectively amortizing the MSR asset against contractual and ancillary fee income. For a further description of the MSR asset, interest rate risk management, and the valuation of MSRs, see Notes 17 on pages 260–263, respectively of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report and Note 3 on pages 94–105 of this Form 10-Q.

In the first quarter of 2011, the Firm determined that the fair value of the MSR asset had declined, reflecting higher estimated future servicing costs related to enhanced servicing processes, particularly loan modification and foreclosure procedures, including costs to comply with Consent Orders entered into with the banking regulators. The increase in the cost to service assumption contemplates significant and prolonged increases in staffing levels in the core and default servicing functions, and specifically considers the higher cost to service certain high-risk vintages. These higher estimated future costs resulted in a $1.1 billion decrease in the fair value of the MSR asset during the three months ended March 31, 2011. This decrease partially offset by an increase in fair value due to the effects of higher market interest rates (which tend to decrease prepayments and therefore extend the expected life of the net servicing cash flows that comprise the MSR asset).

The decrease in the fair value of the MSR in the current quarter results in a lower asset value that will amortize in future periods against contractual and ancillary fee income received in future periods. While there is expected to be higher levels of noninterest expense associated with higher servicing costs in those future periods, there will also be less MSR amortization, which will have the effect of increasing mortgage fees and related income. The amortization of the MSR is reflected in the tables below in the row “Other changes in fair value.”

The following table summarizes MSR activity for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010.

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except where otherwise noted)	2011			2010
Fair value at January 1,	$	13,649		$	15,531
MSR activity
Originations of MSRs		757			689
Purchase of MSRs		1			14
Disposition of MSRs		—			—
Total net additions		758			703
Change in valuation due to inputs and assumptions(a)		(751	)		(96	)
Other changes in fair value(b)		(563	)		(607	)
Total change in fair value of MSRs(c)		(1,314	)		(703	)
Fair value at March 31(d)	$	13,093		$	15,531
Change in unrealized gains/(losses) included in income related to MSRs held at March 31	$	(751	)	$	(96	)
Contractual service fees, late fees and other ancillary fees included in income	$	1,025		$	1,132
Third-party mortgage loans serviced at March 31 (in billions)	$	963		$	1,084
Servicer advances, net at March 31 (in billions)(e)	$	10.8		$	9.0

(a)	Represents MSR asset fair value adjustments due to changes in inputs, such as interest rates and volatility, as well as updates to assumptions used in the valuation model.
(b)	Includes changes in MSR value due to modeled servicing portfolio runoff (i.e., amortization or time decay).
(c)	Includes changes related to commercial real estate of $(2) million for both the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
(d)	Includes $38 million and $39 million related to commercial real estate at March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
(e)	Represents amounts the Firm pays as the servicer (e.g., scheduled principal and interest to a trust, taxes and insurance), which will generally be reimbursed within a short period of time after the advance from future cash flows from the trust or the underlying loans. The Firm’s credit risk associated with these advances is minimal because reimbursement of the advances is senior to all cash payments to investors. In addition, the Firm maintains the right to stop payment if the collateral is insufficient to cover the advance.

150

The following table presents the components of mortgage fees and related income (including the impact of MSR risk management activities) for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010.

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011			2010
RFS mortgage fees and related income
Net production revenue:
Production revenue	$	679		$	433
Repurchase losses		(420	)		(432	)
Net production revenue		259			1
Net mortgage servicing revenue
Operating revenue:
Loan servicing revenue		1,052			1,107
Other changes in MSR asset fair value(a)		(563	)		(605	)
Total operating revenue		489			502
Risk management:
Changes in MSR asset fair value due to inputs or assumptions in model(b)		(751	)		(96	)
Derivative valuation adjustments and other		(486	)		248
Total risk management		(1,237	)		152
Total RFS net mortgage servicing revenue		(748	)		654
All other(c)		2			3
Mortgage fees and related income	$	(487	)	$	658

(a)	Includes changes in the MSR value due to modeled servicing portfolio runoff (i.e., amortization or time decay).
(b)	Represents MSR asset fair value adjustments due to changes in inputs, such as interest rates and volatility, as well as updates to assumptions used in the MSR valuation model.
(c)	Primarily represents risk management activities performed by the Chief Investment Office (“CIO”) in the Corporate sector.

The table below outlines the key economic assumptions used to determine the fair value of the Firm’s MSRs at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010; and it outlines the sensitivities of those fair values to immediate adverse changes in those assumptions, as defined below.

(in millions, except rates)	March 31, 2011			December 31, 2010
Weighted-average prepayment speed assumption (“CPR”)		10.15	%		11.29	%
Impact on fair value of 10% adverse change	$	(727	)	$	(809	)
Impact on fair value of 20% adverse change		(1,407	)		(1,568	)
Weighted-average option adjusted spread		3.94	%		3.94	%
Impact on fair value of 100 basis points adverse change	$	(592	)	$	(578	)
Impact on fair value of 200 basis points adverse change		(1,136	)		(1,109	)

CPR: Constant prepayment rate.

The sensitivity analysis in the preceding table is hypothetical and should be used with caution. Changes in fair value based on variation in assumptions generally cannot be easily extrapolated, 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, which might magnify or counteract the sensitivities.

151

Other intangible assets

The $182 million decrease in other intangible assets during the three months ended March 31, 2011, was predominantly due to $217 million in amortization.

The components of credit card relationships, core deposits and other intangible assets were as follows.

	March 31, 2011						December 31, 2010
					Net						Net
	Gross		Accumulated		carrying		Gross		Accumulated		carrying
(in millions)	amount(a)		amortization(a)		value		amount		amortization		value
Purchased credit card relationships	$	3,829	$	3,009	$	820	$	5,789	$	4,892	$	897
Other credit card–related intangibles		858		276		582		907		314		593
Core deposit intangibles		4,132		3,326		806		4,280		3,401		879
Other intangibles		2,466		817		1,649		2,515		845		1,670

(a) The decrease in the gross amount and accumulated amortization from December 31, 2010 was due to the removal of fully amortized assets.

Intangible assets of approximately $600 million consisting primarily of asset management advisory contracts, were determined to have an indefinite life and are not amortized.

Amortization expense

The following table presents amortization expense related to credit card relationships, core deposits and other intangible assets.

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010
Purchased credit card relationships	$	80	$	97
All other intangibles:
Other credit card–related intangibles		26		26
Core deposit intangibles		72		83
Other intangibles		39		37
Total amortization expense	$	217	$	243

Future amortization expense

The following table presents estimated future amortization expense related to credit card relationships, core deposits and other intangible assets.

			Other credit
	Purchased credit		card related		Core deposit		Other
For the year: (in millions)	card relationships		intangibles		intangibles		intangibles		Total
2011	$	294	$	106	$	284	$	142	$	826
2012		254		109		240		135		738
2013		213		106		195		128		642
2014		110		105		100		111		426
2015		24		97		25		94		240

152

NOTE 17 — DEPOSITS

For further discussion of deposits, see Note 19 on pages 263—264 in JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, noninterest-bearing and interest-bearing deposits were as follows.

(in millions)	March 31, 2011		December 31, 2010
U.S. offices
Noninterest-bearing	$	244,136	$	228,555
Interest-bearing
Demand(a)		34,944		33,368
Savings(b)		345,558		334,632
Time (included $3,062 and $2,733 at fair value)(c)		88,152		87,237
Total interest-bearing deposits		468,654		455,237
Total deposits in U.S. offices		712,790		683,792
Non-U.S. offices
Noninterest-bearing		11,644		10,917
Interest-bearing
Demand		194,726		174,417
Savings		710		607
Time (included $1,215 and $1,636 at fair value)(c)		75,959		60,636
Total interest-bearing deposits		271,395		235,660
Total deposits in non-U.S. offices		283,039		246,577
Total deposits	$	995,829	$	930,369

(a)	Includes Negotiable Order of Withdrawal (“NOW”) accounts, and certain trust accounts.
(b)	Includes Money Market Deposit Accounts (“MMDAs”).
(c)	Includes structured notes classified as deposits for which the fair value option has been elected. For further discussion, see Note 4 on pages 187–189 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

NOTE 18 — OTHER BORROWED FUNDS

The following table details the components of other borrowed funds.

(in millions)	March 31, 2011		December 31, 2010
Advances from Federal Home Loan Banks(a)	$	1,500	$	2,250
Other		35,204		32,075
Total other borrowed funds(b)(c)	$	36,704	$	34,325

(a)	Effective January 1, 2011, $23.0 billion of long-term advances from FHLBs were reclassified from other borrowed funds to long-term debt. The prior-year period has been revised to conform with the current presentation.
(b)	Includes other borrowed funds of $10.6 billion and $9.9 billion accounted for at fair value at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.
(c)	Includes other borrowed funds of $16.4 billion and $14.8 billion secured by assets totaling $16.3 billion and $15.0 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

As of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, JPMorgan Chase had no significant lines of credit for general corporate purposes.

153

NOTE 19 — EARNINGS PER SHARE

For a discussion of the computation of basic and diluted earnings per share (“EPS”), see Note 25 on page 269 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report. The following table presents the calculation of basic and diluted EPS for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010.

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except per share amounts)	2011		2010
Basic earnings per share
Net income	$	5,555	$	3,326
Less: Preferred stock dividends		157		162
Net income applicable to common equity		5,398		3,164
Less: Dividends and undistributed earnings allocated to participating securities		262		190
Net income applicable to common stockholders	$	5,136	$	2,974
Total weighted-average basic shares outstanding		3,981.6		3,970.5
Net income per share	$	1.29	$	0.75

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions, except per share amounts)	2011		2010
Diluted earnings per share
Net income applicable to common stockholders	$	5,136	$	2,974
Total weighted-average basic shares outstanding		3,981.6		3,970.5
Add: Employee stock options, SARs and warrants(a)		32.5		24.2
Total weighted-average diluted shares outstanding(b)		4,014.1		3,994.7
Net income per share	$	1.28	$	0.74

(a)

Excluded from the computation of diluted EPS (due to the antidilutive effect) were options issued under employee benefit plans and the warrants originally issued in 2008 under the U.S. Treasury’s Capital Purchase Program to purchase shares of the Firm’s common stock. The aggregate number of shares issuable upon the exercise of such options and warrants was 85 million and 239 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

(b)

Participating securities were included in the calculation of diluted EPS using the two-class method, as this computation was more dilutive than the calculation using the treasury stock method.

154

NOTE 20 — ACCUMULATED OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME/(LOSS)

AOCI includes the after-tax change in unrealized gains and losses on AFS securities, foreign currency translation adjustments (including the impact of related derivatives), cash flow hedging activities, and net loss and prior service costs/(credit) related to the Firm’s defined benefit pension and OPEB plans.

										Net loss and prior
										service costs/(credit)			Accumulated
As of or for the three months ended	Unrealized			Translation						of defined benefit			other
March31, 2011	gains/(losses) on			adjustments,						pension and			comprehensive
(in millions)	AFS securities(b)			net of hedges			Cash flow hedges			OPEB plans			income/(loss)
Balance at January 1, 2011	$	2,498	(c)	$	253		$	206		$	(1,956	)	$	1,001
Net change		(251)	(d)		24	(e)		(79)	(f)		17	(g)		(289	)
Balance at March 31, 2011	$	2,247	(c)	$	277		$	127		$	(1,939	)	$	712

										Net loss and prior
										service costs/(credit)			Accumulated
As of or for the three months ended	Unrealized			Translation						of defined benefit			other
March 31, 2010	gains/(losses) on			adjustments,						pension and			comprehensive
(in millions)	AFS securities(b)			net of hedges			Cash flow hedges			OPEB plans			income/(loss)
Balance at January 1, 2010	$	2,032	(c)	$	(16	)	$	181		$	(2,288	)	$	(91	)
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle(a)		(129	)		—			—			—			(129	)
Net change		796	(d)		31	(e)		85	(f)		69	(g)		981
Balance at March 31, 2010	$	2,699	(c)	$	15		$	266		$	(2,219	)	$	761

(a)	Reflects the effect of adoption of accounting guidance related to the consolidation of VIEs. AOCI decreased by $129 million due to the adoption of the accounting guidance related to VIEs, as a result of the reversal of the fair value adjustments taken on retained AFS securities that were eliminated in consolidation; for further discussion see Note 16 on pages 244—259 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.
(b)	Represents the after-tax difference between the fair value and amortized cost of securities accounted for as AFS.
(c)	At March 31, 2011, January 1, 2011, March 31, 2010, and January 1, 2010, included after-tax unrealized losses not related to credit on debt securities for which credit losses have been recognized in income of $(65) million, $(81) million, $(193) million and $(226) million, respectively.
(d)	The net change for the three months ended March 31, 2011, was due primarily to decreased market value on pass-through agency MBS and agency collateralized mortgage obligations, as well as on foreign government debt, partially offset by the narrowing of spreads on collateralized loan obligations and foreign residential MBS. The net change for the three months ended March 31, 2010, was due primarily to the narrowing of spreads on commercial and nonagency residential MBS, as well as on collateralized loan obligations; also reflected increased market value on pass-through agency residential MBS.
(e)	At March 31, 2011 and 2010, included after-tax gains/(losses) on foreign currency translation from operations for which the functional currency is other than the U.S. dollar of $262 million and $(170) million, respectively, partially offset by after-tax gains/(losses) on hedges of $(238) million and $201 million, respectively. The Firm may not hedge its entire exposure to foreign currency translation on net investments in foreign operations.
(f)	The net change for the three months ended March 31, 2011, included $71 million of after-tax gains recognized in income, and $(8) million of after-tax losses, representing the net change in derivative fair value that was reported in comprehensive income. The net change for the three months ended March 31, 2010, included $(2) million of after-tax losses recognized in income and $83 million of after-tax gains, representing the net change in derivative fair value that was reported in comprehensive income.
(g)	The net changes for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, were due to after-tax adjustments based on the final year-end actuarial valuations for the U.S. and non-U.S. defined benefit pension and OPEB plans (for 2010 and 2009, respectively); and the amortization of net loss and prior service credit into net periodic benefit cost.

155

NOTE 21 — OFF–BALANCE SHEET LENDING-RELATED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS, GUARANTEES AND OTHER COMMITMENTS

JPMorgan Chase provides lending-related financial instruments (e.g., commitments and guarantees) to meet the financing needs of its customers. The contractual amount of these financial instruments represents the Firm’s maximum possible credit risk should the counterparty draw upon the commitment or the Firm be required to fulfill its obligation under the guarantee, and the counterparty subsequently fail to perform according to the terms of the contract. Most of these commitments and guarantees expire without being drawn or a default occurring. As a result, the total contractual amount of these instruments is not, in the Firm’s view, representative of its actual future credit exposure or funding requirements. For a discussion of off–balance sheet lending-related financial instruments and guarantees, and the Firm’s related accounting policies, see Note 30 on pages 275–280 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

To provide for the risk of loss inherent in wholesale and consumer (excluding credit card) related contracts, an allowance for credit losses on lending-related commitments is maintained. See Note 14 on pages 139–140 of this Form 10-Q for further discussion regarding the allowance for credit losses on lending-related commitments.

The following table summarizes the contractual amounts and carrying values of off–balance sheet lending-related financial instruments, guarantees and other commitments at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010. The amounts in the table below for credit card and home equity lending-related commitments represent the total available credit for these products. The Firm has not experienced, and does not anticipate, that all available lines of credit for these products will be utilized at the same time. The Firm can reduce or cancel credit card lines of credit by providing the borrower prior notice or, in some cases, without notice as permitted by law. The Firm may reduce or close home equity lines of credit when there are significant decreases in the value of the underlying property, or when there has been a demonstrable decline in the creditworthiness of the borrower.

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

	Contractual amount				Carrying value(j)
	March 31,		December 31,		March 31,			December 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010		2011			2010
Lending-related
Consumer, excluding credit card:
Home equity – senior lien	$	17,406	$	17,662	$	—		$	—
Home equity – junior lien		30,146		30,948		—			—
Prime mortgage		745		1,266		—			—
Subprime mortgage		—		—		—			—
Auto		5,947		5,246		1			2
Business banking		9,808		9,702		5			4
Student and other		508		579		—			—
Total consumer, excluding credit card		64,560		65,403		6			6
Credit card		565,813		547,227		—			—
Total consumer		630,373		612,630		6			6
Wholesale:
Other unfunded commitments to extend credit(a)(b)		206,679		199,859		340			364
Standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees(a)(b)(c)(d)		95,361		94,837		706			705
Unused advised lines of credit		47,578		44,720		—			—
Other letters of credit(a)(d)		5,943		6,663		1			2
Total wholesale		355,561		346,079		1,047			1,071
Total lending-related	$	985,934	$	958,709	$	1,053		$	1,077
Other guarantees and commitments
Securities lending indemnifications(e)	$	200,627	$	181,717	$NA			$NA
Derivatives qualifying as guarantees(f)		87,360		87,768		372			294
Unsettled reverse repurchase and securities borrowing agreements(g)		47,021		39,927		—			—
Other guarantees and commitments(h)		6,373		6,492		(6	)		(6	)
Loan sale and securitization-related indemnifications:
Repurchase liability(i)	NA		NA			3,474			3,285
Loans sold with recourse		10,823		10,982		148			153

(a) At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, represents the contractual amount net of risk participations totaling $570 million and $542 million, respectively, for other unfunded commitments to extend credit; $22.8 billion and $22.4 billion, respectively, for standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees; and $1.3 billion and $1.1 billion, respectively, for other letters of credit. In regulatory filings with the Federal Reserve Board these commitments are shown gross of risk participations.

156

(b)	Included credit enhancements and bond and commercial paper liquidity commitments to U.S. states and municipalities, hospitals and other not-for-profit entities of $43.9 billion and $43.4 billion, at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.
(c)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included unissued standby letters of credit commitments of $41.5 billion and $41.6 billion, respectively.
(d)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, JPMorgan Chase held collateral relating to $38.0 billion and $37.8 billion, respectively, of standby letters of credit; and $2.0 billion and $2.1 billion, respectively, of other letters of credit.
(e)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, collateral held by the Firm in support of securities lending indemnification agreements was $203.4 billion and $185.0 billion, respectively. Securities lending collateral comprises primarily cash, and securities issued by governments that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) and U.S. government agencies.
(f)	Represents notional amounts of derivatives qualifying as guarantees. The carrying value at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, reflected derivative payables of $467 million and $390 million, respectively, less derivative receivables of $95 million and $96 million, respectively.
(g)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, the amount of commitments related to forward starting reverse repurchase agreements and securities borrowing agreements were $12.5 billion and $14.4 billion, respectively. Commitments related to unsettled reverse repurchase agreements and securities borrowing agreements with regular way settlement periods were $34.5 billion and $25.5 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.
(h)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included unfunded commitments of $943 million and $1.0 billion, respectively, to third-party private equity funds; and $1.3 billion and $1.4 billion, respectively, to other equity investments. These commitments included $885 million and $1.0 billion, respectively, related to investments that are generally fair valued at net asset value as discussed in Note 3 on pages 94–105 of this Form 10-Q. In addition, at both March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included letters of credit hedged by derivative transactions and managed on a market risk basis of $3.8 billion.
(i)	Represents estimated repurchase liability related to indemnifications for breaches of representations and warranties in loan sale and securitization agreements. For additional information, see Loan sale and securitization-related indemnifications on pages 158–159 of this Note.
(j)	For lending-related products, the carrying value represents the allowance for lending-related commitments and the guarantee liability, for derivative-related products the carrying value represents the fair value. For all other products the carrying value represents the valuation reserve.

Other unfunded commitments to extend credit

Other unfunded commitments to extend credit are generally compromised of commitments for working capital and general corporate purposes, as well as extensions of credit to support commercial paper facilities and bond financings in the event that those obligations cannot be remarketed to new investors.

Also included in other unfunded commitments to extend credit are commitments to noninvestment-grade counterparties in connection with leveraged and acquisition finance activities, which were $5.5 billion and $5.9 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively. For further information, see Note 3 and Note 4 on pages 94–105 and 105–106 respectively, of this Form 10-Q.

Guarantees

The Firm considers the following off–balance sheet lending-related arrangements to be guarantees under U.S. GAAP: standby letters of credit and financial guarantees, securities lending indemnifications, certain indemnification agreements included within third-party contractual arrangements and certain derivative contracts. For a further discussion of the off–balance sheet lending-related arrangements the Firm considers to be guarantees, and the related accounting policies, see Note 30 on pages 275–280 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report. The recorded amounts of the liabilities related to guarantees and indemnifications at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, excluding the allowance for credit losses on lending-related commitments, are discussed on pages 158–159 of this Note.

Standby letters of credit

Standby letters of credit (“SBLC”) and other financial guarantees are conditional lending commitments issued by the Firm to guarantee the performance of a customer to a third party under certain arrangements, such as commercial paper facilities, bond financings, acquisition financings, trade and similar transactions. The carrying values of standby and other letters of credit were $707 million at both March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively, which were classified in accounts payable and other liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets; these carrying values include $342 million and $347 million, respectively, for the allowance for lending-related commitments, and $365 million and $360 million, respectively, for the guarantee liability and corresponding asset.

157

The following table summarizes the types of facilities under which standby letters of credit and other letters of credit arrangements are outstanding by the ratings profiles of the Firm’s customers, as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010.

Standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees and other letters of credit

	March 31, 2011					December 31, 2010
	Standby letters of					Standby letters of
	credit and other			Other letters		credit and other			Other letters
(in millions)	financial guarantees			of credit		financial guarantees			of credit
Investment-grade(a)	$	71,244		$	4,761	$	70,236		$	5,289
Noninvestment-grade(a)		24,117			1,182		24,601			1,374
Total contractual amount(b)	$	95,361	(c)	$	5,943	$	94,837	(c)	$	6,663
Allowance for lending-related commitments	$	341		$	1	$	345		$	2
Commitments with collateral		38,034			1,986		37,815			2,127

(a)	The ratings scale is based on the Firm’s internal ratings which generally correspond to ratings as defined by S&P and Moody’s.
(b)	At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, represented contractual amount net of risk participations totaling $22.8 billion and $22.4 billion, respectively, for standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees; and $1.3 billion and $1.1 billion, respectively, for other letters of credit. In regulatory filings with the Federal Reserve these commitments are shown gross of risk participations.
(c)	At March 31, 2011,and December 31, 2010, included unissued standby letters of credit commitments of $41.5 billion and $41.6 billion,respectively.

Derivatives qualifying as guarantees

In addition to the contracts described above, the Firm transacts certain derivative contracts that meet the characteristics of a guarantee under U.S. GAAP. For further information on these derivatives, see Note 30 on pages 275–280 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report. The total notional value of the derivatives that the Firm deems to be guarantees was $87.4 billion and $87.8 billion at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively. The notional amount generally represents the Firm’s maximum exposure to derivatives qualifying as guarantees. However, exposure to certain stable value derivatives is contractually limited to a substantially lower percentage of the notional amount; the notional amount on these stable value contracts was $26.1 billion and $25.9 billion and the maximum exposure to loss was $2.7 billion, at both March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010. The fair values of the contracts reflects the probability of whether the Firm will be required to perform under the contract. The fair value related to derivative guarantees were derivative payables of $467 million and $390 million and derivative receivables of $95 million and $96 million at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively. The Firm reduces exposures to these contracts by entering into offsetting transactions, or by entering into contracts that hedge the market risk related to the derivative guarantees.

In addition to derivative contracts that meet the characteristics of a guarantee, the Firm is both a purchaser and seller of credit protection in the credit derivatives market. For a further discussion of credit derivatives, see Note 5 on pages 107–113 of this Form 10-Q, and Note 6 on pages 191–199 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Loan sale- and securitization-related indemnifications

Indemnifications for breaches of representations and warranties

In connection with the Firm’s loan sale and securitization activities with the GSEs and other loan sale and private-label securitization transactions, as described in Notes 13 and 15 on pages 122–138 and 141–149, respectively, of this Form 10-Q, and Notes 14 and 16 on pages 220–238 and 244–259, respectively of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report, the Firm has made representations and warranties that the loans sold meet certain requirements. The Firm may be, and has been, required to repurchase loans and/or indemnify the GSEs and other investors for losses due to material breaches of these representations and warranties; however, predominantly all of the repurchase demands received by the Firm and the Firm’s losses realized to date are related to loans sold to the GSEs.

The Firm has recognized a repurchase liability of $3.5 billion and $3.3 billion, as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively, which is reported in accounts payable and other liabilities net of probable recoveries from third parties.

Substantially all of the estimates and assumptions underlying the Firm’s established methodology for computing its recorded repurchase liability — including factors such as the amount of probable future demands from purchasers, the ability of the Firm to cure identified defects, the severity of loss upon repurchase or foreclosure, and recoveries from third parties — require application of a significant level of management judgment. Estimating the repurchase liability is further complicated by limited and rapidly changing historical data and uncertainty surrounding numerous external factors, including: (i) macro-economic factors and (ii) the level of future demands, which is dependent, in part, on actions taken by third parties such as the GSEs and mortgage insurers. While the Firm uses the best information available to it in

158

estimating its repurchase liability, the estimation process is inherently uncertain and imprecise and, accordingly, losses in excess of the amounts accrued as of March 31, 2011, are reasonably possible.

The Firm believes the estimate of the range of reasonably possible losses, in excess of reserves established, for its repurchase liability is from $0 to approximately $1.8 billion at March 31, 2011. This estimated range of reasonably possible loss is based on an assumed peak to trough decline in home prices of 44%, which is an additional 11 percentage point decline in home prices beyond the Firm’s current assumptions. Such a decline could increase the level of loan delinquencies, thereby potentially increasing the repurchase demand rate from the GSEs and increasing loss severity on repurchased loans, each of which could affect the Firm’s repurchase liability. The Firm does not consider such a further decline in home prices to be likely to occur, and actual repurchase losses could vary significantly from the Firm’s recorded repurchase liability or this estimate of reasonably possible additional losses, depending on the outcome of various factors, including those considered above.

The following table summarizes the change in the repurchase liability for each of the periods presented.

Summary of changes in repurchase liability

Three months ended March 31, (in millions)	2011			2010
Repurchase liability at beginning of period	$	3,285		$	1,705
Realized losses(a)		(231	)		(246	)
Provision for repurchase losses		420			523
Repurchase liability at end of period	$	3,474		$	1,982

(a) Includes principal losses and accrued interest on repurchased loans, “make-whole” settlements, settlements with claimants, and certain related expenses. Make-whole settlements were $115 million and $105 million at March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Loans sold with recourse

The Firm provides servicing for mortgages and certain commercial lending products on both a recourse and nonrecourse basis. In nonrecourse servicing, the principal credit risk to the Firm is the cost of temporary servicing advances of funds (i.e., normal servicing advances). In recourse servicing, the servicer agrees to share credit risk with the owner of the mortgage loans, such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or a private investor, insurer or guarantor. Losses on recourse servicing predominantly occur when foreclosure sales proceeds of the property underlying a defaulted loan are less than the sum of the outstanding principal balance, plus accrued interest on the loan and the cost of holding and disposing of the underlying property. The Firm’s securitizations are predominantly nonrecourse, thereby effectively transferring the risk of future credit losses to the purchaser of the mortgage-backed securities issued by the trust. At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, the unpaid principal balance of loans sold with recourse totaled $10.8 billion and $11.0 billion, respectively. The carrying value of the related liability that the Firm has recorded, which is representative of the Firm’s view of the likelihood it will have to perform under this guarantee, was $148 million and $153 million at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

159

NOTE 22 — PLEDGED ASSETS AND COLLATERAL

For a discussion of the Firm’s pledged assets and collateral, see Note 31 on pages 280–281 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Pledged assets

At March 31, 2011, assets were pledged to collateralize repurchase agreements, other securities financing agreements, derivative transactions and for other purposes, including to secure borrowings and public deposits. Certain of these pledged assets may be sold or repledged by the secured parties and are identified as financial instruments owned (pledged to various parties) on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. In addition, at March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, the Firm had pledged $305.4 billion and $288.7 billion, respectively, of financial instruments it owns that may not be sold or repledged by the secured parties. Total assets pledged do not include assets of consolidated VIEs; these assets are used to settle the liabilities of those entities. See Note 15 on pages 141–149 of this Form 10-Q, and Note 16 on pages 244–259 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report, for additional information on assets and liabilities of consolidated VIEs. For further information regarding pledged assets, see Note 31 on page 281 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

Collateral

At March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, the Firm had accepted assets as collateral that it could sell or repledge, deliver or otherwise use with a fair value of approximately $730.4 billion and $655.0 billion, respectively. This collateral was generally obtained under resale agreements, securities borrowing agreements, customer margin loans and derivative agreements. Of the collateral received, approximately $544.2 billion and $521.3 billion, respectively, were sold or repledged, generally as collateral under repurchase agreements, securities lending agreements or to cover short sales and to collateralize deposits and derivative agreements. For further information regarding collateral, see Note 31 on page 281 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

NOTE 23 — LITIGATION

As of March 31, 2011, the Firm and its subsidiaries are defendants or putative defendants in more than 10,000 legal proceedings, in the form of regulatory/government investigations as well as private, civil litigations. The litigations range from individual actions involving a single plaintiff to class action lawsuits with potentially millions of class members. Investigations involve both formal and informal proceedings, by both governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations. These legal proceedings are at varying stages of adjudication, arbitration or investigation, and involve each of the Firm’s lines of business and geographies and a wide variety of claims (including common law tort and contract claims and statutory antitrust, securities and consumer protection claims), some of which present novel claims or legal theories.

The Firm believes the estimate of the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses, in excess of reserves established, for its legal proceedings is from $0 to approximately $4.5 billion at March 31, 2011. This estimated aggregate range of reasonably possible losses is based upon currently available information for those proceedings in which the Firm is involved, taking into account the Firm’s best estimate of such losses for those cases for which such estimate can be made. For certain cases, the Firm does not believe that an estimate can currently be made. The Firm’s estimate involves significant judgment, given the varying stages of the proceedings (including the fact that many of them are currently in preliminary stages), the existence of multiple defendants (including the Firm) in many of such proceedings whose share of liability has yet to be determined, the numerous yet-unresolved issues in many of the proceedings (including issues regarding class certification and the scope of many of the claims), and the attendant uncertainty of the various potential outcomes of such proceedings. Accordingly, the Firm’s estimate will change from time to time, and actual losses may be more than the current estimate.

Set forth below are descriptions of the Firm’s material legal proceedings.

Auction-Rate Securities Investigations and Litigation.Beginning in March 2008, several regulatory authorities initiated investigations of a number of industry participants, including the Firm, concerning possible state and federal securities law violations in connection with the sale of auction-rate securities. The market for many such securities had frozen and a significant number of auctions for those securities began to fail in February 2008.

The Firm, on behalf of itself and affiliates, agreed to a settlement in principle with the New York Attorney General’s Office which provided, among other things, that the Firm would offer to purchase at par certain auction-rate securities purchased from J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (“JPMorgan Securities”; formerly J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.), Chase Investment Services Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. by individual investors, charities and small- to medium-sized businesses. The Firm also agreed to a substantively similar settlement in principle with the Office of Financial Regulation

160

for the State of Florida and the North American Securities Administrator Association (“NASAA”) Task Force, which agreed to recommend approval of the settlement to all remaining states, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Firm has finalized the settlement agreements with the New York Attorney General’s Office and the Office of Financial Regulation for the State of Florida. The settlement agreements provide for the payment of penalties totaling $25 million to all states. The Firm is currently in the process of finalizing consent agreements with NASAA’s member states; over 40 of these consent agreements have been finalized to date.

The Firm also faces a number of civil actions relating to the Firm’s sales of auction-rate securities, including a putative securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that seeks unspecified damages, and individual arbitrations and lawsuits in various forums brought by institutional and individual investors that, together, seek damages totaling more than $200 million relating to the Firm’s sales of auction-rate securities. One action is brought by an issuer of auction-rate securities. The actions generally allege that the Firm and other firms manipulated the market for auction-rate securities by placing bids at auctions that affected these securities’ clearing rates or otherwise supported the auctions without properly disclosing these activities. Some actions also allege that the Firm misrepresented that auction-rate securities were short-term instruments. The Firm has filed motions to dismiss each of the actions pending in federal court, which are being coordinated before the Southern District. These motions are currently pending.

Additionally, the Firm was named in two putative antitrust class actions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The actions allege that the Firm, along with numerous other financial institution defendants, colluded to maintain and stabilize the auction-rate securities market and then to withdraw their support for the auction-rate securities market. In January 2010, the District Court dismissed both actions. An appeal is pending in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Bear Stearns Hedge Fund Matters.Bear Stearns, certain current or former subsidiaries of Bear Stearns, including Bear Stearns Asset Management, Inc. (“BSAM”) and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., and certain current or former Bear Stearns employees are named defendants (collectively the “Bear Stearns defendants”) in multiple civil actions and arbitrations relating to alleged losses resulting from the failure of the Bear Stearns High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund, Ltd. (the “High Grade Fund”) and the Bear Stearns High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Master Fund, Ltd. (the “Enhanced Leverage Fund”) (collectively, the “Funds”). BSAM served as investment manager for both of the Funds, which were organized such that there were U.S. and Cayman Islands “feeder funds” that invested substantially all their assets, directly or indirectly, in the Funds. The Funds are in liquidation.

There are currently four civil actions pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to the Funds. Two of these actions involve derivative lawsuits brought on behalf of purchasers of partnership interests in the two U.S. feeder funds, alleging that the Bear Stearns defendants mismanaged the Funds and made material misrepresentations to and/or withheld information from investors in the feeder funds. These actions seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages based on alleged investor losses. The third action, brought by the Joint Voluntary Liquidators of the Cayman Islands feeder funds, makes allegations similar to those asserted in the derivative lawsuits related to the U.S. feeder funds, and seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Motions to dismiss in these three cases have been granted in part and denied in part. An agreement in principle has been reached, pursuant to which BSAM would pay a maximum of approximately $19 million to settle the one derivative action relating to the feeder fund to the High Grade Fund. BSAM has reserved the right not to proceed with this settlement if plaintiff is unable to secure the participation of investors whose net contributions meet a prescribed percentage of the aggregate net contributions to the High Grade Fund. The agreement in principle remains subject to documentation and approval by the Court. In the other two actions, the parties have been ordered by the Court to engage in settlement discussions and discovery has been limited for the duration of that process. Total alleged losses in these three actions exceed $1 billion.

The fourth action was brought by Bank of America and Banc of America Securities LLC (together “BofA”) alleging breach of contract and fraud in connection with a May 2007 $4 billion securitization, known as a “CDO-squared,” for which BSAM served as collateral manager. This securitization was composed of certain collateralized debt obligation (“CDO”) holdings that were purchased by BofA from the Funds. Bank of America seeks in excess of $3 billion in damages. Defendants’ motion to dismiss in this action was largely denied, an amended complaint was filed and discovery is ongoing.

Bear Stearns Shareholder Litigation and Related Matters.Various shareholders of Bear Stearns have commenced purported class actions against Bear Stearns and certain of its former officers and/or directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Bear Stearns between December 14, 2006 and March 14, 2008 (the “Class Period”). During the Class Period, Bear Stearns had between 115 and 120 million common shares outstanding, and the price of those securities declined from a high of $172.61 to a low of $30 at the end of the period. The

161

actions, originally commenced in several federal courts, allege that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Bear Stearns’ business and financial results and that, as a result of those false statements, Bear Stearns’ common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Separately, several individual shareholders of Bear Stearns have commenced or threatened to commence arbitration proceedings and lawsuits asserting claims similar to those in the putative class actions. Certain of these matters have been dismissed or settled. In addition, Bear Stearns and certain of its former officers and/or directors have also been named as defendants in a number of purported class actions commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to represent the interests of participants in the Bear Stearns Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“ESOP”) during the time period of December 2006 to March 2008. These actions, brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and to the other participants and beneficiaries of the ESOP by (a) failing to manage prudently the ESOP’s investment in Bear Stearns securities; (b) failing to communicate fully and accurately about the risks of the ESOP’s investment in Bear Stearns stock; (c) failing to avoid or address alleged conflicts of interest; and (d) failing to monitor those who managed and administered the ESOP.

Bear Stearns, former members of Bear Stearns’ Board of Directors and certain of Bear Stearns’ former executive officers have also been named as defendants in a shareholder derivative and class action suit which is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs are asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, violations of federal securities laws, waste of corporate assets and gross mismanagement, unjust enrichment, abuse of control and indemnification and contribution in connection with the losses sustained by Bear Stearns as a result of its purchases of subprime loans and certain repurchases of its own common stock. Certain individual defendants are also alleged to have sold their holdings of Bear Stearns common stock while in possession of material nonpublic information. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount.

All of the above-described actions filed in federal courts were ordered transferred and joined for pre-trial purposes before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Defendants moved to dismiss the purported securities class action, the shareholders’ derivative action and the ERISA action. In January 2011, the District Court granted the motions to dismiss the derivative and ERISA actions, and denied the motion as to the securities action. Plaintiffs in the derivative action have filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal as well as an appeal. Plaintiffs in the ESOP action have filed a motion to alter the judgment and for leave to amend their amended consolidated complaint. Discovery will now commence in the securities action.

City of Milan Litigation and Criminal Investigation.In January 2009, the City of Milan, Italy (the “City”) issued civil proceedings against (among others) JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd. (together, “JPMorgan Chase”) in the District Court of Milan. The proceedings relate to (a) a bond issue by the City in June 2005 (the “Bond”), and (b) an associated swap transaction, which was subsequently restructured on a number of occasions between 2005 and 2007 (the “Swap”). The City seeks damages and/or other remedies against JPMorgan Chase (among others) on the grounds of alleged “fraudulent and deceitful acts” and alleged breach of advisory obligations in connection with the Swap and the Bond, together with related swap transactions with other counterparties. The judge directed four current and former JPMorgan Chase personnel and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (as well as other individuals and three other banks) to go forward to a full trial that started in May 2010. Although the Firm is not charged with any crime and does not face criminal liability, if one or more of its employees were found guilty, the Firm could be subject to administrative sanctions, including restrictions on its ability to conduct business in Italy and monetary penalties. Hearings have continued on a weekly basis since May 2010.

Enron Litigation.JPMorgan Chase and certain of its officers and directors are involved in several lawsuits that together seek substantial damages arising out of the Firm’s banking relationships with Enron Corp. and its subsidiaries (“Enron”). A number of actions and other proceedings against the Firm previously were resolved, including a class action lawsuit captioned Newby v. Enron Corp. and adversary proceedings brought by Enron’s bankruptcy estate. The remaining Enron-related actions include individual actions by Enron investors, an action by an Enron counterparty, and a purported class action filed on behalf of JPMorgan Chase employees who participated in the Firm’s 401(k) plan asserting claims under the ERISA for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by JPMorgan Chase, its directors and named officers. That action has been dismissed, and is on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Interchange Litigation.A group of merchants has filed a series of putative class action complaints in several federal courts. The complaints allege that VISA and MasterCard, as well as certain other banks and their respective bank holding companies, conspired to set the price of credit and debit card interchange fees, enacted respective association rules in violation of antitrust laws, and engaged in tying/bundling and exclusive dealing. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief based on the theory that interchange would be lower or eliminated but for the challenged

162

conduct. Based on publicly available estimates, Visa and MasterCard branded payment cards generated approximately $40 billion of interchange fees industry-wide in 2009. All cases have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for pretrial proceedings. The Court has dismissed all claims relating to periods prior to January 2004. The Court has not yet ruled on motions relating to the remainder of the case. Fact and expert discovery in the case have closed. The Court has not yet ruled on plaintiffs’ class certification motion.

In addition to the consolidated class action complaint, plaintiffs filed supplemental complaints challenging the initial public offerings (“IPOs”) of MasterCard and Visa (the “IPO Complaints”). With respect to the MasterCard IPO, plaintiffs allege that the offering violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that the offering was a fraudulent conveyance. With respect to the Visa IPO, plaintiffs are challenging the Visa IPO on antitrust theories parallel to those articulated in the MasterCard IPO pleading. Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the IPO Complaints. The Court has not yet ruled on those motions.

The parties also have filed motions seeking summary judgment as to various claims in the complaints. Briefing is expected to be completed in June 2011.

Investment Management Litigation.Four cases have been filed claiming that investment portfolios managed by JPMorgan Investment Management Inc. (“JPMorgan Investment Management”) were inappropriately invested in securities backed by subprime residential real estate collateral. Plaintiffs claim that JPMorgan Investment Management and related defendants are liable for losses of more than $1 billion in market value of these securities. The first case was filed by NM Homes One, Inc. in federal District Court in New York. Following rulings on motions addressed to the pleadings, plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and gross negligence survive, and discovery is proceeding. In the second case, which was filed by Assured Guaranty (U.K.) in New York state court, the New York State Appellate Division allowed plaintiff to proceed with its claims for breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligence, and for breach of contract based on alleged violations of the Delaware Insurance Code. JPMorgan Investment Management’s appeal is pending in the New York State Court of Appeals. Discovery is also proceeding. In the third case, filed by Ambac Assurance UK Limited in New York state court, the lower court granted JPMorgan Investment Management’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff appealed and the appeal is pending. The fourth case was filed by CMMF LLP in New York state court. The amended complaint asserts claims under New York law for breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. The lower court denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss and discovery is proceeding.

Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy Proceedings.In May 2010, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and its Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors filed a complaint (and later an amended complaint) against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York that asserts both federal bankruptcy law and state common law claims, and seeks, among other relief, to recover $8.6 billion in collateral that was transferred to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. in the weeks preceding LBHI’s bankruptcy. The amended complaint also seeks unspecified damages on the grounds that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s collateral requests hastened LBHI’s demise. The Firm has moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint in its entirety. The Firm also filed counterclaims against LBHI alleging that LBHI fraudulently induced the Firm to make large clearing advances to Lehman against inappropriate collateral, which left the Firm with more than $25 billion in claims against the estate of Lehman’s broker-dealer, which could be unpaid if the Firm is required to return any collateral to Lehman. Discovery is underway with a trial scheduled for 2012. In addition, in April 2011 the Firm and the SIPA Trustee for LBHI’s U.S. broker-dealer subsidiary, Lehman Brothers Inc. (“LBI”) announced that they had reached an agreement to return more than $800 million in alleged LBI customer assets to the LBI Estate for distribution to its customer claimants. The agreement is subject to the approval of the Bankruptcy Court. The Firm has also responded to various regulatory inquiries regarding the Lehman matter.

     Madoff Litigation.JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., JPMorgan Securities LLC, and JPMorgan Securities Ltd. have been named as defendants in a lawsuit brought by the trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (the “Trustee”). The Trustee asserts 28 causes of action against JPMorgan Chase, 16 of which seek to avoid certain transfers (direct or indirect) made to JPMorgan Chase that are alleged to have been preferential or fraudulent under the federal Bankruptcy Code and the New York Debtor and Creditor Law. The remaining causes of action are for, among other things, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment. The complaint generally alleges that JPMorgan Chase, as Madoff’s long-time bank, facilitated the maintenance of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme and overlooked signs of wrongdoing in order to obtain profits and fees. The complaint purports to seek approximately $6 billion in damages from JPMorgan Chase, and to recover approximately $425 million in transfers that JPMorgan Chase allegedly received directly or indirectly from Bernard

163

Madoff’s brokerage firm. JPMorgan Chase has filed a motion to return the case from the Bankruptcy Court to the District Court, and intends to seek the dismissal of all or most of the Trustee’s claims once that motion is decided.

Separately, J.P. Morgan Trust Company (Cayman) Limited, JPMorgan (Suisse) SA, J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd., and Bear Stearns Alternative Assets International Ltd. have been named as defendants in several suits in Bankruptcy Court and state and federal courts in New York arising out of the liquidation proceedings of Fairfield Sentry Limited and Fairfield Sigma Limited (together, “Fairfield”), so-called Madoff feeder funds. These actions advance theories of mistake and restitution and seek to recover payments previously made to defendants by the funds totaling approximately $140 million.

In addition, a purported class action is pending against JPMorgan Chase in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, as is a motion by separate potential class plaintiffs to add claims against JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd. to an already-pending purported class action in the same court. The allegations in these complaints largely track those raised by the Trustee. Defendants’ motions to dismiss and opposition to the motions for leave to amend are currently due on June 29, 2011.

Finally, JPMorgan Chase is a defendant in five actions pending in the New York state court and one individual action in federal court in New York. The allegations in all of these actions are essentially identical, and involve claims against the Firm for aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment. In the federal action, the Firm prevailed on its motion to dismiss before the District Court, and plaintiff appealed. In the state court actions, the Firm’s motion to dismiss has been fully-briefed and the parties are awaiting the court’s decision. The Firm has also responded to various governmental inquiries concerning the Madoff matter.

Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation and Regulatory Investigations.JPMorgan Chase and affiliates, Bear Stearns and affiliates and Washington Mutual affiliates have been named as defendants in a number of cases in their various roles as issuer or underwriter in mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) offerings. These cases include purported class action suits, actions by individual purchasers of securities, actions by insurance companies that guaranteed payments of principal and interest for particular tranches and an action by a trustee. Although the allegations vary by lawsuit, these cases generally allege that the offering documents for more than $100 billion of securities issued by dozens of securitization trusts contained material misrepresentations and omissions, including statements regarding the underwriting standards pursuant to which the underlying mortgage loans were issued, or assert that various representations or warranties relating to the loans were breached at the time of origination.

In the actions against the Firm as an MBS issuer (and, in some cases, also as an underwriter of its own MBS offerings), three purported class actions are pending against JPMorgan Chase and Bear Stearns, and/or certain of their affiliates and current and former employees, in the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York. Defendants have moved to dismiss these actions. One of those motions has been granted in part to dismiss all claims relating to MBS offerings in which a named plaintiff was not a purchaser or the claims were barred by statutes of limitations. The other two motions remain pending. In addition, Washington Mutual affiliates, WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. and WaMu Capital Corp., along with certain former officers or directors of WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp., have been named as defendants in three now-consolidated purported class action cases pending in the Western District of Washington. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part to dismiss all claims relating to MBS offerings in which a named plaintiff was not a purchaser. Plaintiffs are seeking class certification, and discovery is ongoing.

In other actions brought against the Firm as an MBS issuer (and, in some cases, also as an underwriter) certain JPMorgan Chase entities, several Bear Stearns entities, and certain Washington Mutual affiliates are defendants in ten separate individual actions commenced by the Federal Home Loan Banks of Pittsburgh, Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, Indianapolis, Atlanta and Boston in various state courts around the country; and certain JPMorgan Chase, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual entities are also among the defendants named in separate individual actions commenced by various institutional investors in federal and states courts. Certain of the state court proceedings have been removed to federal court, and motions to remand are pending.

EMC Mortgage Corporation (“EMC”), a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase, and certain other JPMorgan Chase entities are defendants in four pending actions commenced by bond insurers that guaranteed payments of principal and interest on approximately $3.6 billion of certain classes of seven different MBS offerings sponsored by EMC. Two of those actions, commenced by Assured Guaranty Corp. and Syncora Guarantee, Inc., respectively, are pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The third action, filed by Ambac Assurance Corporation, was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds by the United States District for the Southern District of New York. The dismissal is on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Ambac has also filed a nearly identical complaint

164

in New York state court. Defendants have moved to stay the state court proceeding pending the outcome of the federal appeal. The fourth action, commenced by CIFG Assurance North America, Inc., is pending in state court in Texas. In each action, plaintiff claims that the underlying mortgage loans had origination defects that purportedly violate certain representations and warranties given by EMC to plaintiffs, and that EMC has breached the relevant agreements between the parties by failing to repurchase allegedly defective mortgage loans. In addition, the Ambac and CIFG complaints allege fraudulent inducement. Each action seeks unspecified damages and an order compelling EMC to repurchase those loans. The CIFG complaint seeks punitive damages.

In the actions against the Firm solely as an underwriter of other issuers’ MBS offerings, the Firm has contractual rights to indemnification from the issuers, but those indemnity rights may prove effectively unenforceable where the issuers are now defunct, such as affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp (“IndyMac Trusts”) and Thornburg Mortgage (“Thornburg”). With respect to the IndyMac Trusts, JPMorgan Securities, along with numerous other underwriters and individuals, is named as a defendant, both in its own capacity and as successor to Bear Stearns in a purported class action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York brought on behalf of purchasers of securities in various Indy-Mac Trust MBS offerings. The Court in that action has dismissed claims as to certain such securitizations, including all offerings in which no named plaintiff purchased securities, and allowed claims as to other offerings to proceed. Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class of investors in certain offerings is pending, and discovery is ongoing. In addition, JPMorgan Securities and JPMorgan Chase are named as defendants in an individual action filed by the Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh in connection with a single offering by an affiliate of IndyMac Bancorp. Discovery in that action is ongoing. Separately, JPMorgan Securities, as successor to Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., along with other underwriters and certain individuals, are defendants in an action pending in state court in California brought by MBIA Insurance Corp. (“MBIA”). The action relates to certain securities issued by IndyMac trusts in offerings in which Bear Stearns was an underwriter, and as to which MBIA provided guaranty insurance policies. MBIA purports to be subrogated to the rights of the MBS holders, and seeks recovery of sums it has paid and will pay pursuant to those policies. Discovery is ongoing. With respect to Thornburg, a Bear Stearns subsidiary is also a named defendant in a purported class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico along with a number of other financial institutions that served as depositors and/or underwriters for three Thornburg MBS offerings. Defendants have moved to dismiss this action.

In addition to the above-described litigation, the Firm has also received, and responded to, a number of subpoenas and informal requests for information from federal and state authorities concerning mortgage-related matters, including inquiries concerning a number of transactions involving the Firm’s underwriting and issuance of MBS and its participation in offerings of certain collateralized debt obligations. As has been previously reported, JPMorgan Securities has been cooperating with the staff of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement regarding its investigation of certain collateralized debt obligations, and is currently in advanced discussions with the staff concerning a potential resolution of that investigation. There can be no assurance that any such resolution will be finalized or approved.

In addition to the above mortgage-related matters, the Firm is now a defendant in an action commenced by Deutsche Bank, described in more detail below with respect to the Washington Mutual Litigations.

Mortgage Foreclosure Investigations and Litigation.Multiple state and federal officials have announced investigations into the procedures followed by mortgage servicing companies and banks, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its affiliates, relating to foreclosure and loss mitigation processes. The Firm is cooperating with these investigations, and these investigations could result in material fines, penalties, equitable remedies (including requiring default servicing or other process changes), or other enforcement actions, as well as significant legal costs in responding to governmental investigations and additional litigation. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve have issued Consent Orders as to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and JPMorgan Chase & Co., respectively. In their Orders, the regulators have mandated significant changes to the Firm’s servicing and default business and outlined requirements to implement these changes. Included in these requirements is the retention of an independent consultant to conduct an independent review of certain residential foreclosure actions or proceedings for loans serviced by the Firm that have been pending at any time from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010, as well as residential foreclosure sales that occurred during this time period. These regulators have reserved the right to impose civil monetary penalties at a later date. Investigations by other state and federal authorities remain pending.

Four purported class action lawsuits have also been filed against the Firm relating to its mortgage foreclosure procedures. Additionally, Bank of America has tendered defense of a purported class action brought against it involving an EMC loan. One of the cases has been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the plaintiff. The Firm has moved to dismiss the remaining cases.

As of January 2011, the Firm had resumed initiation of new foreclosure proceedings in nearly all states in which it had previously suspended such proceedings, utilizing revised procedures in connection with the execution of affidavits and other documents used by Firm employees in the foreclosure process. The Firm is also in the process of reviewing pending

165

foreclosure matters to determine whether remediation of specific documentation is necessary, and is resuming pending foreclosures as the review, and if necessary, remediation, of each pending matter is completed.

Municipal Derivatives Investigations and Litigation.The Department of Justice (in conjunction with the Internal Revenue Service), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), a group of state attorneys general and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) have been investigating JPMorgan Chase and Bear Stearns for possible antitrust, securities and tax-related violations in connection with the bidding or sale of guaranteed investment contracts and derivatives to municipal issuers. The Philadelphia Office of the SEC provided notice to JPMorgan Securities that it intends to recommend that the SEC bring civil charges in connection with its investigation. JPMorgan Securities has responded to that notice, as well as to a separate notice that the Philadelphia Office of the SEC provided to Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. The Firm has been cooperating with all of these investigations, and is seeking to resolve them on a negotiated basis.

Purported class action lawsuits and individual actions (the “Municipal Derivatives Actions”) have been filed against JPMorgan Chase and Bear Stearns, as well as numerous other providers and brokers, alleging antitrust violations in the reportedly $100 billion to $300 billion annual market for financial instruments related to municipal bond offerings referred to collectively as “municipal derivatives.” The Municipal Derivatives Actions have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Court denied in part and granted in part defendants’ motions to dismiss the purported class and individual actions, permitting certain claims to proceed against the Firm and others under federal and California state antitrust laws and under the California false claims act. Subsequently, a number of additional individual actions asserting substantially similar claims, including claims under New York and West Virginia state antitrust statutes, were filed against JPMorgan Chase, Bear Stearns and numerous other defendants. All of these cases have been coordinated for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Discovery is ongoing.

Following J.P. Morgan Securities’ settlement with the SEC in connection with certain Jefferson County, Alabama (the “County”) warrant underwritings and swap transactions, various parties have brought civil litigation against the Firm. The County and a putative class of sewer rate payers have filed complaints against the Firm and several other defendants in Alabama state court. The suits allege that the Firm made payments to certain third parties in exchange for being chosen to underwrite more than $3 billion in warrants issued by the County and chosen as the counterparty for certain swaps executed by the County. The complaints also allege that the Firm concealed these third-party payments and that, but for this concealment, the County would not have entered into the transactions. The Court denied the Firm’s motions to dismiss the complaints in both proceedings. The Firm filed a mandamus petition with the Alabama Supreme Court, seeking immediate appellate review of this decision. The mandamus petition in the County’s lawsuit was denied in April 2011. The mandamus petition in the lawsuit brought by sewer ratepayers remains pending.

Separately, two insurance companies that guaranteed the payment of principal and interest on warrants issued by Jefferson County have filed separate actions against the Firm in New York state court. Their complaints assert that the Firm fraudulently misled them into issuing insurance based upon substantially the same alleged conduct described above and other alleged non-disclosures. One insurer claims that it insured an aggregate principal amount of nearly $1.2 billion and seeks unspecified damages in excess of $400 million, as well as unspecified punitive damages. The other insurer claims that it insured an aggregate principal amount of more than $378 million and seeks recovery of $4 million allegedly paid under the policies to date as well as any future payments and unspecified punitive damages. In December 2010, the court denied the Firm’s motions to dismiss each of the complaints. Discovery is proceeding.

Overdraft Fee/Debit Posting Order Litigation.JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has been named as a defendant in several purported class actions relating to its practices in posting debit card transactions to customers’ deposit accounts. Plaintiffs allege that the Firm improperly re-ordered debit card transactions from the highest amount to lowest amount before processing these transactions in order to generate unwarranted overdraft fees. Plaintiffs contend that the Firm should have processed such transactions in the chronological order they were authorized. Plaintiffs seek the disgorgement of all overdraft fees paid to the Firm by plaintiffs, since approximately 2003, as a result of the re-ordering of debit card transactions. The claims against the Firm have been consolidated with numerous complaints against other national banks in Multi-District Litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Firm’s motion to compel arbitration of certain plaintiffs’ claims was denied by the District Court. That ruling is currently on appeal. Discovery is proceeding in the District Court. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is pending.

Petters Bankruptcy and Related Matters.JPMorgan Chase and certain of its affiliates, including One Equity Partners, LLC (“OEP”), have been named as defendants in several actions filed in connection with the receivership and bankruptcy proceedings pertaining to Thomas J. Petters and certain entities affiliated with Petters (collectively, “Petters”) and the

166

Polaroid Corporation. The principal actions against JPMorgan Chase and its affiliates have been brought by the receiver in Petters’ personal bankruptcy and the trustees in the bankruptcy proceedings for three Petters entities, and generally seek to avoid, on fraudulent transfer and preference grounds, certain purported transfers in connection with (i) the 2005 acquisition of Polaroid by Petters, which at the time was majority-owned by OEP; (ii) two credit facilities that JPMorgan Chase and other financial institutions entered into with Polaroid; and (iii) a credit line and investment accounts held by Petters. The actions collectively seek recovery of approximately $450 million. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaints in the actions filed by the Petters bankruptcy trustees and have also sought to transfer those actions to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, where the receiver’s action is pending.

Securities Lending Litigation. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has been named as a defendant in four putative class actions asserting ERISA and other claims pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York brought by participants in the Firm’s securities lending business. A fifth lawsuit was filed in New York state court by an individual participant in the program. Three of the purported class actions, which have been consolidated, relate to investments of approximately $500 million in medium-term notes of Sigma Finance Inc. (“Sigma”). In August 2010, the Court certified a plaintiff class consisting of all securities lending participants that held Sigma medium-term notes on September 30, 2008, including those that held the notes by virtue of participation in the investment of cash collateral through a collective fund, as well as those that held the notes by virtue of the investment of cash collateral through individual accounts. All discovery has been completed. JPMorgan Chase has moved for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ duty of loyalty claim, in which it is alleged that the Firm created an impermissible conflict of interest by providing repurchase financing to Sigma while also holding Sigma medium-term notes in securities lending accounts.

The fourth putative class action concerns investments of approximately $500 million in Lehman Brothers medium-term notes. The Firm has moved to dismiss the amended complaint and is awaiting a decision. Discovery is proceeding while the motion is pending. The New York state court action, which is not a class action, concerns the plaintiff’s alleged loss of money in both Sigma and Lehman Brothers medium-term notes. The Firm has answered the complaint. Discovery is proceeding.

Service Members Civil Relief Act and Housing and Economic Recovery Act Investigations and Litigation.Multiple government officials have announced inquiries into the Firm’s procedures related to the Service Members Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”) and the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (“HERA”). These inquiries have been prompted by the Firm’s public statements about its SCRA and HERA compliance and actions to remedy certain instances in which the Firm mistakenly charged active or recently-active military personnel mortgage interest and fees in excess of that permitted by SCRA and HERA, and in a number of instances, foreclosed on borrowers protected by SCRA and HERA. The Firm has implemented a number of procedural enhancements and controls to strengthen its SCRA and HERA compliance. In addition, an individual borrower filed a nationwide class action in United States District Court for South Carolina against the Firm alleging violations of the SCRA related to home loans. The Firm agreed to pay $27 million plus attorneys’ fees, in addition to reimbursements previously paid by the Firm, to settle the class action. The settlement is subject to court approval.

Washington Mutual Litigations.Subsequent to JPMorgan Chase’s acquisition from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) of substantially all of the assets and certain specified liabilities of Washington Mutual Bank (“Washington Mutual Bank”) in September 2008, Washington Mutual Bank’s parent holding company, Washington Mutual, Inc. (“WMI”) and its wholly-owned subsidiary, WMI Investment Corp. (together, the “Debtors”), both commenced voluntary cases under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Case”). In the Bankruptcy Case, the Debtors have asserted rights and interests in certain assets. The assets in dispute include principally the following: (a) approximately $4 billion in trust securities contributed by WMI to Washington Mutual Bank (the “Trust Securities”); (b) the right to tax refunds arising from overpayments attributable to operations of Washington Mutual Bank and its subsidiaries; (c) ownership of and other rights in approximately $4 billion that WMI contends are deposit accounts at Washington Mutual Bank and one of its subsidiaries; and (d) ownership of and rights in various other contracts and other assets (collectively, the “Disputed Assets”).

WMI, JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC have since been involved in litigations over these and other claims pending in the Bankruptcy Court and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

In May 2010, WMI, JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC announced a global settlement agreement among themselves and significant creditor groups (the “Global Settlement Agreement”). The Global Settlement Agreement is incorporated into WMI’s proposed Chapter 11 plan (“the Plan”) that has been submitted to the Bankruptcy Court. If approved by the Bankruptcy Court, the Global Settlement would resolve numerous disputes among WMI, JPMorgan Chase, the FDIC in

167

its capacity as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank and the FDIC in its corporate capacity, as well as those of significant creditor groups, including disputes relating to the Disputed Assets.

Other proceedings related to Washington Mutual’s failure are also pending before the Bankruptcy Court. Among other actions, in July 2010, certain holders of the Trust Securities commenced an adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court against JPMorgan Chase, WMI, and other entities seeking, among other relief, a declaratory judgment that WMI and JPMorgan Chase do not have any right, title or interest in the Trust Securities. In early January 2011, the Bankruptcy Court granted summary judgment to JPMorgan Chase and denied summary judgment to the plaintiffs in the Trust Securities adversary proceeding.

The Bankruptcy Court considered confirmation of the Plan, including the Global Settlement Agreement, in hearings in early December 2010. In early January 2011, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion in which it concluded that the Global Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable, but that the Plan cannot be confirmed until the parties correct certain deficiencies, which include the scope of releases. None of these deficiencies relates to the Disputed Assets. The Equity Committee has filed a petition seeking a direct appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from so much of the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling that found the settlement to be fair and reasonable. A revised Plan was filed with the Bankruptcy Court in February 2011, and the Bankruptcy Court has scheduled confirmation hearings for early June 2011. If the Global Settlement is effected and the Plan is confirmed, then the Firm currently estimates it will not incur net additional liabilities beyond those already reflected in its balance sheet for the numerous disputes covered by the Global Settlement.

Other proceedings related to Washington Mutual’s failure are pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and include a lawsuit brought by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, initially against the FDIC, asserting an estimated $6 billion to $10 billion in damages based upon alleged breach of various mortgage securitization agreements and alleged violation of certain representations and warranties given by certain WMI subsidiaries in connection with those securitization agreements. The case includes assertions that JPMorgan Chase may have assumed liabilities relating to the mortgage securitization agreements. In April 2011, the District Court denied as premature motions by the Firm and the FDIC that sought a ruling on whether the FDIC retained liability for Deutsche Bank’s claims.

In addition, JPMorgan Chase was sued in an action originally filed in State Court in Texas (the “Texas Action”) by certain holders of WMI common stock and debt of WMI and Washington Mutual Bank who seek unspecified damages alleging that JPMorgan Chase acquired substantially all of the assets of Washington Mutual Bank from the FDIC at an allegedly too-low price. The Texas Action was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which ultimately granted JPMorgan Chase’s and the FDIC’s motions to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffs’ appeal of this dismissal is pending.

* * *

In addition to the various legal proceedings discussed above, JPMorgan Chase and its subsidiaries are named as defendants or otherwise involved in a substantial number of other legal proceedings. The Firm believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it in its currently outstanding legal proceedings and it intends to defend itself vigorously in all such matters. Additional legal proceedings may be initiated from time to time in the future.

The Firm has established reserves for several hundred of its currently outstanding legal proceedings. The Firm accrues for potential liability arising from such proceedings when it is probable that such liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Firm evaluates its outstanding legal proceedings each quarter to assess its litigation reserves, and makes adjustments in such reserves, upwards or downwards, as appropriate, based on management’s best judgment after consultation with counsel. During the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, the Firm incurred $1.1 billion and $2.9 billion, respectively, of litigation expense. There is no assurance that the Firm’s litigation reserves will not need to be adjusted in the future.

In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of legal proceedings, particularly where the claimants seek very large or indeterminate damages, or where the matters present novel legal theories, involve a large number of parties or are in early stages of discovery, the Firm cannot state with confidence what the eventual outcome of the currently pending matters will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of these pending matters will be or what the eventual loss, fines, penalties or impact related to each currently pending matter may be. JPMorgan Chase believes, based upon its current knowledge, after consultation with counsel and after taking into account its current litigation reserves, that the legal proceedings currently pending against it should not have a material adverse effect on the Firm’s consolidated financial condition. The Firm notes, however, that in light of the uncertainties involved in such proceedings, there is no

168

assurance the ultimate resolution of these matters will not significantly exceed the reserves currently accrued by the Firm; as a result, the outcome of a particular matter may be material to JPMorgan Chase’s operating results for a particular period, depending on, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and the level of JPMorgan Chase’s income for that period.

NOTE 24 — BUSINESS SEGMENTS

The Firm is managed on a line of business basis. There are six major reportable business segments — Investment Bank, Retail Financial Services, Card Services, Commercial Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management, as well as a Corporate/Private Equity segment. The business segments are determined 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 a managed basis. For a definition of managed basis, see the footnotes to the table below. For a further discussion concerning JPMorgan Chase’s business segments, see Business Segment Results on page 15 of this Form 10-Q, and pages 67–68 and Note 34 on pages 290–293 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

169

Segment results

The following tables provide a summary of the Firm’s segment results for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, on a managed basis. Total net revenue (noninterest revenue and net interest income) for each of the segments is presented on a fully tax-equivalent basis. Accordingly, revenue from tax-exempt securities and investments that receive tax credits are presented in the managed results on a basis comparable to taxable securities and investments. This approach allows management to assess the comparability of revenue arising from both taxable and tax-exempt sources. The corresponding income tax impact related to these items is recorded within income tax expense/(benefit).

Effective January 1, 2011, capital allocated to CS was reduced, largely reflecting portfolio runoff and the improving risk profile of the business; capital allocated to TSS was increased. The Firm continues to assess the level of capital required for each line of business, as well as the assumptions and methodologies used to allocate capital to the business segments, and further refinements may be implemented in future periods.

Segment results and reconciliation^(a)

Three months ended March 31, 2011	Investment			Retail Financial			Card			Commercial
(in millions, except ratios)	Bank			Services			Services			Banking
Noninterest revenue	$	6,176		$	1,645		$	782		$	502
Net interest income		2,057			4,630			3,200			1,014
Total net revenue		8,233			6,275			3,982			1,516
Provision for credit losses		(429	)		1,326			226			47
Credit allocation income(b)		—			—			—			—
Noninterest expense		5,016			5,262			1,555			563
Income/(loss) before income tax expense/(benefit)		3,646			(313	)		2,201			906
Income tax expense/(benefit)		1,276			(105	)		858			360
Net income/(loss)	$	2,370		$	(208	)	$	1,343		$	546
Average common equity	$	40,000		$	28,000		$	13,000		$	8,000
Average assets		815,828			364,266			138,113			140,400
Return on average common equity		24	%		(3	)%		42	%		28	%
Overhead ratio		61			84			39			37

Three months ended March 31, 2011	Treasury &			Asset			Corporate/			Reconciling
(in millions, except ratios)	Securities Services			Management			Private Equity			Items(c)			Total
Noninterest revenue	$	1,137		$	2,020		$	1,478		$	(424	)	$	13,316
Net interest income		703			386			34			(119	)		11,905
Total net revenue		1,840			2,406			1,512			(543	)		25,221
Provision for credit losses		4			5			(10	)		—			1,169
Credit allocation income/(expense)(b)		27			—			—			(27	)		—
Noninterest expense		1,377			1,660			562			—			15,995
Income before income tax expense/(benefit)		486			741			960			(570	)		8,057
Income tax expense/(benefit)		170			275			238			(570	)		2,502
Net income	$	316		$	466		$	722		$	—		$	5,555
Average common equity	$	7,000		$	6,500		$	66,915		$	—		$	169,415
Average assets		47,873			68,918			529,054		NA				2,104,452
Return on average common equity		18	%		29	%	NM			NM				13	%
Overhead ratio		75			69		NM			NM				63

Three months ended March 31, 2010	Investment			Retail Financial			Card			Commercial
(in millions, except ratios)	Bank			Services			Services			Banking
Noninterest revenue	$	6,191		$	2,752		$	758		$	500
Net interest income		2,128			5,024			3,689			916
Total net revenue		8,319			7,776			4,447			1,416
Provision for credit losses		(462	)		3,733			3,512			214
Credit allocation income(b)		—			—			—			—
Noninterest expense		4,838			4,242			1,402			539
Income/(loss) before income tax expense/(benefit)		3,943			(199	)		(467	)		663
Income tax expense/(benefit)		1,472			(68	)		(164	)		273
Net income/(loss)	$	2,471		$	(131	)	$	(303	)	$	390
Average common equity	$	40,000		$	28,000		$	15,000		$	8,000
Average assets		676,122			393,867			156,968			133,013
Return on average common equity		25	%		(2	)%		(8	)%		20	%
Overhead ratio		58			55			32			38

170

Three months ended March 31, 2010	Treasury &			Asset			Corporate/			Reconciling
(in millions, except ratios)	Securities Services			Management			Private Equity			Items(c)			Total
Noninterest revenue	$	1,146		$	1,774		$	1,281		$	(441	)	$	13,961
Net interest income		610			357			1,076			(90	)		13,710
Total net revenue		1,756			2,131			2,357			(531	)		27,671
Provision for credit losses		(39	)		35			17			—			7,010
Credit allocation income/(expense)(b)		(30	)		—			—			30			—
Noninterest expense		1,325			1,442			2,336			—			16,124
Income/(loss) before income tax expense/(benefit)		440			654			4			(501	)		4,537
Income tax expense/(benefit)		161			262			(224	)		(501	)		1,211
Net income	$	279		$	392		$	228		$	—		$	3,326
Average common equity	$	6,500		$	6,500		$	52,094		$	—		$	156,094
Average assets		38,273			62,525			577,912		NA				2,038,680
Return on average common equity		17	%		24	%	NM			NM				8	%
Overhead ratio		75			68		NM			NM				58

(a)

In addition to analyzing the Firm’s results on a reported basis, management reviews the Firm’s lines of business results on a “managed basis,” which is a non-GAAP financial measure. The Firm’s definition of managed basis starts with the reported U.S. GAAP results and includes certain reclassifications as discussed below that do not have any impact on net income as reported by the lines of business or by the Firm as a whole.

(b)

IB manages credit exposures related to the Global Corporate Bank (“GCB”) on behalf of IB and TSS. Effective January 1, 2011, IB and TSS will share the economics related to the Firm’s GCB clients. Included within this allocation are net revenues, provision for credit losses, as well as expenses. Prior-year period reflected a reimbursement to IB for a portion of the total costs of managing the credit portfolio. IB recognizes this credit allocation as a component of all other income.

(c) Segment managed results reflect revenue on a fully tax-equivalent basis, with the corresponding income tax impact recorded within income tax expense/(benefit). These adjustments are eliminated in reconciling items to arrive at the Firm’s reported U.S. GAAP results. Tax-equivalent adjustments for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, were as follows.

	Three months ended March 31,
(in millions)	2011		2010
Noninterest revenue	$	451	$	411
Net interest income		119		90
Income tax expense		570		501

171

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
JPMorgan Chase & Co.:

We have reviewed the consolidated balance sheet of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its subsidiaries (the “Firm”) as of March 31, 2011, and the related consolidated statements of income for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2011 and March 31, 2010, and the consolidated statements of cash flows and consolidated statements of changes in stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2011 and March 31, 2010, included in the Firm’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011. These interim financial statements are the responsibility of the Firm’s management.

We conducted our review in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the consolidated interim financial statements, for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2010, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein), and in our report dated February 28, 2011, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2010, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.

May 6, 2011

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 300 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017

172

JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
CONSOLIDATED AVERAGE BALANCE SHEETS, INTEREST AND RATES
(Taxable-Equivalent Interest and Rates; in millions, except rates)

	Three months ended March 31, 2011								Three months ended March 31, 2010
	Average					Rate			Average					Rate
	balance			Interest		(annualized)			balance			Interest		(annualized)
Assets
Deposits with banks	$	37,155		$	101		1.11	%	$	64,229		$	95		0.60	%
Federal funds sold and securities purchased under resale agreements		202,481			543		1.09			170,036			407		0.97
Securities borrowed		114,589			47		0.17			114,636			29		0.10
Trading assets — debt instruments		275,512			2,925		4.31			248,089			2,791		4.56
Securities		318,936			2,271		2.89	(d)		337,441			2,944		3.54	(d)
Loans		688,133			9,531		5.62			725,136			10,576		5.91
Other assets(a)		49,887			148		1.20			27,885			93		1.36
Total interest-earning assets		1,686,693			15,566		3.74			1,687,452			16,935		4.07
Allowance for loan losses		(31,802	)							(38,937	)
Cash and due from banks		29,334								30,023
Trading assets — equity instruments		141,951								83,674
Trading assets — derivative receivables		85,437								78,683
Goodwill		48,846								48,542
Other intangible assets:
Mortgage servicing rights		14,024								15,155
Purchased credit card relationships		858								1,197
Other intangibles		3,070								3,110
Other assets		126,041								129,781
Total assets	$	2,104,452							$	2,038,680
Liabilities
Interest-bearing deposits	$	700,921		$	922		0.53	%	$	677,431		$	844		0.51	%
Short-term and other liabilities(b)(c)		508,902			818		0.65			478,629			562		0.48
Beneficial interests issued by consolidated VIEs		72,932			214		1.19			98,104			330		1.36
Long-term debt(c)		269,156			1,588		2.39			281,744			1,399		2.01
Total interest-bearing liabilities		1,551,911			3,542		0.93			1,535,908			3,135		0.83
Noninterest-bearing deposits		229,461								200,075
Trading liabilities — equity instruments		7,872								5,728
Trading liabilities — derivative payables		71,288								59,053
All other liabilities, including the allowance for lending-related commitments		66,705								73,670
Total liabilities		1,927,237								1,874,434
Stockholders’ equity
Preferred stock		7,800								8,152
Common stockholders’ equity		169,415								156,094
Total stockholders’ equity		177,215								164,246
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	2,104,452							$	2,038,680
Interest rate spread							2.81	%							3.24	%
Net interest income and net yield on interest-earning assets				$	12,024		2.89	%				$	13,800		3.32	%

(a)	Includes margin loans.
(b)	Includes brokerage customer payables.
(c)	Effective January 1, 2011, long-term advances from FHLBs were reclassified from other borrowed funds to long-term debt. The prior-year period has been revised to conform with the current presentation; average long-term FHLBs advances for the three months ended March 31, 2010 were $19.2 billion.
(d)	For the quarters ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, the annualized rates for AFS securities, based on amortized cost, were 2.92% and 3.59%, respectively.

173

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

ACH:Automated Clearing House.

Advised lines of credit:An authorization which specifies the maximum amount of a credit facility the Firm has made available to an obligor on a revolving but nonbinding basis. The borrower receives written or oral advice of this facility. The Firm may cancel this facility at any time.

Allowance for loan losses to total loans:Represents period-end allowance for loan losses divided by retained loans.

Assets under management:Represent assets actively managed by AM on behalf of Private Banking, Institutional and Retail clients. Includes “Committed capital not Called,” on which AM earns fees. Excludes assets managed by American Century Companies, Inc., in which the Firm has a 40% ownership interest as of March 31, 2011.

Assets under supervision:Represent assets under management as well as custody, brokerage, administration and deposit accounts.

Beneficial interests issued by consolidated VIEs:Represents the interests of third-party holders of debt/equity securities, or other obligations, issued by VIEs that JPMorgan Chase consolidates. The underlying obligations of the VIEs consist of short-term borrowings, commercial paper and long-term debt. The related assets consist of trading assets, available-for-sale securities, loans and other assets.

Contractual credit card charge-off: In accordance with the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council policy, credit card loans are charged off by the end of the month in which the account becomes 180 days past due or within 60 days from receiving notification about a specific event (e.g., bankruptcy of the borrower), whichever is earlier.

Corporate/Private Equity:Includes Private Equity, Treasury and the Chief Investment Office, as well as Corporate Other, which includes other centrally managed expense and discontinued operations.

Credit derivatives:Contractual agreements that provide protection against a credit event on 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 or 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.

Deposit margin:Represents net interest income expressed as a percentage of average deposits.

FASB:Financial Accounting Standards Board.

FDIC:Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

FICO:Fair Isaac Corporation.

Forward points:Represents the interest rate differential between two currencies, which is either added to or subtracted from the current exchange rate (i.e., “spot rate”) to determine the forward exchange rate.

Global Corporate Bank: TSS and IB formed a joint venture to create the Firm’s Global Corporate Bank. With a team of bankers, the Global Corporate Bank serves multinational clients by providing them access to TSS products and services and certain IB products, including derivatives, foreign exchange and debt. The cost of this effort and the credit that the Firm extends to these clients is shared between TSS and IB.

Headcount-related expense:Includes salary and benefits (excluding performance-based incentives), and other noncompensation costs related to employees.

Interchange income:A fee paid to a credit card issuer in the clearing and settlement of a sales or cash advance transaction.

Interests in purchased receivables:Represents an ownership interest in cash flows of an underlying pool of receivables transferred by a third-party seller into a bankruptcy-remote entity, generally a trust.

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.

LLC:Limited Liability Company.

174

Loan-to-value (“LTV”) ratio:For residential real estate loans, the relationship, expressed as a percentage, between the principal amount of a loan and the appraised value of the collateral (i.e., residential real estate) securing the loan.

Origination date LTV ratio

The LTV ratio at the origination date of the loan. Origination date LTV ratios are calculated based on the actual appraised values of collateral (i.e., loan-level data) at the origination date.

Current estimated LTV ratio

An estimate of the LTV as of a certain date. The current estimated LTV ratios are calculated using estimated collateral values derived from a nationally recognized home price index measured at the MSA level. These MSA-level home price indices comprise actual data to the extent available and forecasted data where actual data is not available. As a result, the estimated collateral values used to calculate these ratios do not represent actual appraised loan-level collateral values; as such, the resulting LTV ratios are necessarily imprecise and should therefore be viewed as estimates.

Combined LTV ratio

The LTV ratio considering all lien positions related to the property. Combined LTV ratios are used for junior lien home equity products.

Managed basis:A non-GAAP presentation of financial results that includes reclassifications to present revenue on a fully taxable-equivalent basis. Management uses this non-GAAP financial measure at the segment level, because it believes this provides information to enable investors to understand the underlying operational performance and trends of the particular business segment and facilitates a comparison of the business segment with the performance of competitors.

Master netting agreement:An agreement between two counterparties who have multiple derivative contracts with each other that provides for the net settlement of all contracts, as well as cash collateral, through a single payment, in a single currency, in the event of default on or termination of any one contract.

Mortgage product types:

Alt-A

Alt-A loans are generally higher in credit quality than subprime loans but have characteristics that would disqualify the borrower from a traditional prime loan. Alt-A lending characteristics may include one or more of the following: (i) limited documentation; (ii) a high combined-loan-to-value (“CLTV”) ratio; (iii) loans secured by non-owner occupied properties; or (iv) a debt-to-income ratio above normal limits. Perhaps the most important characteristic is limited documentation. A substantial proportion of traditional Alt-A loans are those where a borrower does not provide complete documentation of his or her assets or the amount or source of his or her income.

Option ARMs

The option ARM real estate loan product is an adjustable-rate mortgage loan that provides the borrower with the option each month to make a fully amortizing, interest-only, or minimum payment. The minimum payment on an option ARM loan is based on the interest rate charged during the introductory period. This introductory rate is usually significantly below the fully indexed rate. The fully indexed rate is calculated using an index rate plus a margin. Once the introductory period ends, the contractual interest rate charged on the loan increases to the fully indexed rate and adjusts monthly to reflect movements in the index. The minimum payment is typically insufficient to cover interest accrued in the prior month, and any unpaid interest is deferred and added to the principal balance of the loan. Option ARM loans are subject to payment recast, which converts the loan to a variable-rate fully amortizing loan upon meeting specified loan balance and anniversary date triggers.

Prime

Prime mortgage loans generally have low default risk and are made to borrowers with good credit records and monthly income at least three to four times greater than their monthly housing expense (mortgage payments plus taxes and other debt payments). These borrowers provide full documentation and generally have reliable payment histories.

Subprime

Subprime loans are designed for customers with one or more high risk characteristics, including but not limited to: (i) unreliable or poor payment histories; (ii) a high LTV ratio of greater than 80% (without borrower-paid mortgage insurance); (iii) a high debt-to-income ratio; (iv) an occupancy type for the loan is other than the borrower’s primary residence; or (v) a history of delinquencies or late payments on the loan.

175

MSR risk management revenue:Includes changes in the fair value of the MSR asset due to market-based inputs, such as interest rates and volatility, as well as updates to assumptions used in the MSR valuation model; and derivative valuation adjustments and other, which represents changes in the fair value of derivative instruments used to offset the impact of changes in the market-based inputs to the MSR valuation model.

Multi-asset:Any fund or account that allocates assets under management to more than one asset class (e.g., long-term fixed income, equity, cash, real assets, private equity or hedge funds).

NA:Data is not applicable or available for the period presented.

Net charge-off rate:Represents net charge-offs (annualized) divided by average retained loans for the reporting period.

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.

OPEB:Other postretirement employee benefits.

Overhead ratio:Noninterest expense as a percentage of total net revenue.

Participating securities:Represents unvested stock-based compensation awards containing nonforfeitable rights to dividends or dividend equivalents (collectively, “dividends”), which are included in the earnings per share calculation using the two-class method. JPMorgan Chase grants restricted stock and RSUs to certain employees under its stock-based compensation programs, which entitle the recipients to receive nonforfeitable dividends during the vesting period on a basis equivalent to the dividends paid to holders of common stock. These unvested awards meet the definition of participating securities. Under the two-class method, all earnings (distributed and undistributed) are allocated to each class of common stock and participating securities, based on their respective rights to receive dividends.

Personal bankers:Retail branch office personnel who acquire, retain and expand new and existing customer relationships by assessing customer needs and recommending and selling appropriate banking products and services.

Portfolio activity:Describes changes to the risk profile of existing lending-related exposures and their impact on the allowance for credit losses from changes in customer profiles and inputs used to estimate the allowances.

Pre-provision profit:Pre-provision profit is total net revenue less noninterest expense. The Firm believes that this financial measure is useful in assessing the ability of a lending institution to generate income in excess of its provision for credit losses.

Pretax margin:Represents income before income tax expense divided by total net revenue, which is, in management’s view, a comprehensive measure of pretax performance derived by measuring earnings after all costs are taken into consideration. It is, therefore, another basis that management uses to evaluate the performance of TSS and AM against the performance of their respective competitors.

Principal transactions:Realized and unrealized gains and losses from trading activities (including physical commodities inventories that are accounted for at the lower of cost or fair value) and changes in fair value associated with financial instruments held predominantly by IB for which the fair value option was elected. Principal transactions revenue also includes private equity gains and losses.

Purchased credit-impaired (“PCI”) loans:Acquired loans deemed to be credit-impaired under the FASB guidance for PCI loans. The guidance allows purchasers to aggregate credit-impaired loans acquired in the same fiscal quarter into one or more pools, provided that the loans have common risk characteristics (e.g., FICO score, geographic location). A pool is then accounted for as a single asset with a single composite interest rate and an aggregate expectation of cash flows. Wholesale loans are determined to be credit-impaired if they meet the definition of an impaired loan under U.S. GAAP at the acquisition date. Consumer loans are determined to be credit-impaired based on specific risk characteristics of the loan, including product type, LTV ratios, FICO scores, and past due status.

Receivables from customers:Primarily represents margin loans to prime and retail brokerage customers which are included in accrued interest and accounts receivable on the Consolidated Balance Sheets for the wholesale lines of business.

Reported basis:Financial statements prepared under U.S. GAAP, which excludes the impact of taxable-equivalent adjustments.

176

Retained loans:Loans that are held-for-investment excluding loans held-for-sale and loans at fair value.

Risk-weighted assets (“RWA”): Risk-weighted assets consist of on– and off–balance sheet assets that are assigned to one of several broad risk categories and weighted by factors representing their risk and potential for default. On–balance sheet assets are risk-weighted based on the perceived credit risk associated with the obligor or counterparty, the nature of any collateral, and the guarantor, if any. Off–balance sheet assets, such as lending-related commitments, guarantees, derivatives and other applicable off–balance sheet positions, are risk-weighted by multiplying the contractual amount by the appropriate credit conversion factor to determine the on–balance sheet credit equivalent amount, which is then risk-weighted based on the same factors used for on–balance sheet assets. Risk-weighted assets also incorporate a measure for the market risk related to applicable trading assets–debt and equity instruments, and foreign exchange and commodity derivatives. The resulting risk-weighted values for each of the risk categories are then aggregated to determine total risk-weighted assets.

Sales specialists:Retail branch office personnel who specialize in the marketing of a single product, including mortgages, investments and business banking, by partnering with the personal bankers.

Stress testing:A scenario that measures market risk under unlikely but plausible events in abnormal markets.

Taxable-equivalent basis:Total net revenue for each of the business segments and the Firm is presented on a taxable-equivalent basis. Accordingly, revenue from tax-exempt securities and investments that receive tax credits is presented in the managed results on a basis comparable to fully taxable securities and investments. This non-GAAP financial measure allows management to assess the comparability of revenue arising from both taxable and tax-exempt sources. The corresponding income tax impact related to these items is recorded within income tax expense.

Troubled debt restructuring (“TDR”):Occurs when the Firm modifies the original terms of a loan agreement by granting a concession to a borrower that is experiencing financial difficulty.

Unaudited:Financial statements and information that 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.

U.S. government-sponsored enterprise obligations:Obligations of agencies originally established or chartered by the U.S. government to serve public purposes as specified by the U.S. Congress; these obligations are not explicitly guaranteed as to the timely payment of principal and interest by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

U.S. Treasury:U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Value-at-risk (“VaR”):A measure of the dollar amount of potential loss from adverse market moves in an ordinary market environment.

Washington Mutual transaction:On September 25, 2008, JPMorgan Chase acquired the banking operations of Washington Mutual Bank (“Washington Mutual”) from the FDIC. For additional information, see Note 2 on pages 166–170 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

LINE OF BUSINESS METRICS

Investment Banking

IB’s revenue comprises the following:

Investment banking feesinclude advisory, equity underwriting, bond underwriting and loan syndication fees.

Fixed income marketsprimarily include revenue related to market-making across global fixed income markets, including foreign exchange, interest rate.

Equity marketsprimarily include revenue related to market-making across global equity products, including cash instruments, derivatives, convertibles and Prime Services.

Credit portfolio revenueincludes net interest income, fees and loan sale activity, as well as gains or losses on securities received as part of a loan restructuring, for IB’s credit portfolio. Credit portfolio revenue also includes the results of risk management related to the Firm’s lending and derivative activities.

177

Retail Financial Services

Description of selected business metrics within Retail Banking:

Personal bankers— Retail branch office personnel who acquire, retain and expand new and existing customer relationships by assessing customer needs and recommending and selling appropriate banking products and services.

Sales specialists— Retail branch office personnel who specialize in the marketing of a single product, including mortgages, investments and business banking, by partnering with the personal bankers.

Mortgage banking revenue comprises the following:

Net production revenueincludes net gains or losses on originations and sales of prime and subprime mortgage loans, other production-related fees and losses related to the repurchase of previously-sold loans.

Net mortgage servicing revenueincludes the following components:
(a) Operating revenue comprises:

– All gross income earned from servicing third-party mortgage loans, including stated service fees, excess service fees, late fees and other ancillary fees; and

– Modeled servicing portfolio runoff (or time decay).

(b) Risk management comprises:

– Changes in the MSR asset fair value due to market-based inputs, such as interest rates and volatility, as well as updates to assumptions used in the MSR valuation model; and

– Derivative valuation adjustments and other, which represents changes in the fair value of derivative instruments used to offset the impact of changes in the market-based inputs to the MSR valuation model.

Mortgage origination channels comprise the following:

Retail— Borrowers who are buying or refinancing a home through direct contact with a mortgage banker employed by the Firm using a branch office, the Internet or by phone. Borrowers are frequently referred to a mortgage banker by a banker in a Chase branch, real estate brokers, home builders or other third parties.

Wholesale— A third-party mortgage broker refers loan applications to a mortgage banker at the Firm. Brokers are independent loan originators that specialize in finding and counseling borrowers but do not provide funding for loans. The Firm exited the broker channel during 2008.

Correspondent— Banks, thrifts, other mortgage banks and other financial institutions that sell closed loans to the Firm.

Correspondent negotiated transactions (“CNTs”)— These transactions occur when mid-to large-sized mortgage lenders, banks and bank-owned mortgage companies sell servicing to the Firm, on an as-originated basis, and exclude purchased bulk servicing transactions. These transactions supplement traditional production channels and provide growth opportunities in the servicing portfolio in stable and periods of rising interest rates.

Card Services

Description of selected business metrics within CS:

Sales volume— Dollar amount of cardmember purchases, net of returns.

Open accounts— Cardmember accounts with charging privileges.

Merchant acquiring business— A business that processes bank card transactions for merchants.

Bank card volume— Dollar amount of transactions processed for merchants.

Total transactions— Number of transactions and authorizations processed for merchants.

Commercial Cardprovides a wide range of payment services to corporate and public sector clients worldwide through the commercial card products. Services include procurement, corporate travel and entertainment, expense management services, and Business-to-Business payment solutions.

178

Commercial Banking

CB Client Segments:

Middle Market Bankingcovers corporate, municipal, financial institution and not-for-profit clients, with annual revenue generally ranging between $10 million and $500 million.

Corporate Client Bankingcovers clients with annual revenue generally ranging between $500 million and $2 billion and focuses on clients that have broader investment banking needs.

Commercial Term Lendingprimarily provides term financing to real estate investors/owners for multi-family properties as well as financing office, retail and industrial properties.

Real Estate Bankingprovides full-service banking to investors and developers of institutional-grade real estate properties.

Otherprimarily includes lending and investment activity within the Community Development Banking and Chase Capital segments.

CB revenue:

Lendingincludes a variety of financing alternatives, which are primarily provided on a basis secured by receivables, inventory, equipment, real estate or other assets. Products include term loans, revolving lines of credit, bridge financing, asset-based structures, leases, commercial card products and standby letters of credit.

Treasury servicesincludes a broad range of products and services enabling clients to transfer, invest and manage the receipt and disbursement of funds, while providing the related information reporting. These products and services include U.S. dollar and multi-currency clearing, ACH, lockbox, disbursement and reconciliation services, check deposits, other check and currency–related services, trade finance and logistics solutions, deposit products, sweeps and money market mutual funds.

Investment bankingproducts provide clients with sophisticated capital-raising alternatives, as well as balance sheet and risk management tools through loan syndications, investment-grade debt, asset-backed securities, private placements, high-yield bonds, equity underwriting, advisory, interest rate derivatives, foreign exchange hedges and securities sales.

Otherproduct revenue primarily includes tax-equivalent adjustments generated from Community Development Banking segment activity and certain income derived from principal transactions.

CB selected business metrics:

Liability balancesinclude deposits, as well as deposits that are swept to on–balance sheet liabilities (e.g., commercial paper, federal funds purchased, time deposits and securities loaned or sold under repurchase agreements) as part of customer cash management programs.

IB revenue, grossrepresents total revenue related to investment banking products sold to CB clients.

Treasury & Securities Services Treasury & Securities Servicesfirmwide metricsinclude certain TSS product revenue and liability balances reported in other lines of business related to customers who are also customers of those other lines of business. In order to capture the firmwide impact of Treasury Services and TSS products and revenue, management reviews firmwide metrics such as liability balances, revenue and overhead ratios in assessing financial performance for TSS. Firmwide metrics are necessary, in management’s view, in order to understand the aggregate TSS business.

Description of a business metric within TSS:

Liability balancesinclude deposits, as well as deposits that are swept to on–balance sheet liabilities (e.g., commercial paper, federal funds purchased, time deposits and securities loaned or sold under repurchase agreements) as part of customer cash management programs.

Asset Management

Assets under management —Represent assets actively managed by AM on behalf of Private Banking, Institutional, and Retail clients. Includes “committed capital not called”, on which AM earns fees. Excludes assets managed by American Century Companies, Inc., in which the Firm has a 40% ownership interest as of March 31, 2011.

Assets under supervision —Represents assets under management as well as custody, brokerage, administration and deposit accounts.

179

Multi-asset— Any fund or account that allocates assets under management to more than one asset class (e.g., long term fixed income, equity, cash, real assets, private equity, or hedge funds).

Alternative assets— The following types of assets constitute alternative investments – hedge funds, currency, real estate and private equity.

AM’s client segments comprise the following:

Institutionalbrings comprehensive global investment services – including asset management, pension analytics, asset/liability management and active risk budgeting strategies — to corporate and public institutions, endowments, foundations, not-for-profit organizations and governments worldwide.

Retailprovides worldwide investment management services and retirement planning and administration through third-party and direct distribution of a full range of investment vehicles.

Private Bankingoffers investment advice and wealth management services to high- and ultra-high-net-worth individuals, families, money managers, business owners and small corporations worldwide, including investment management, capital markets and risk management, tax and estate planning, banking, capital raising and specialty-wealth advisory services.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

From time to time, the Firm has made and will make forward-looking statements. These statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. Forward-looking statements often use words such as “anticipate,” “target,” “expect,” “estimate,” “intend,” “plan,” “goal,” “believe,” or other words of similar meaning. Forward-looking statements provide JPMorgan Chase’s current expectations or forecasts of future events, circumstances, results or aspirations. JPMorgan Chase’s disclosures in this Form 10-Q contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Firm also may make forward-looking statements in its other documents filed or furnished with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, the Firm’s senior management may make forward-looking statements orally to analysts, investors, representatives of the media and others.

All forward-looking statements are, by their nature, subject to risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Firm’s control. JPMorgan Chase’s actual future results may differ materially from those set forth in its forward-looking statements. While there is no assurance that any list of risks and uncertainties or risk factors is complete, below are certain factors which could cause actual results to differ from those in the forward-looking statements:

• Local, regional and international business, economic and political conditions and geopolitical events;

• Changes in laws and regulatory requirements, including as a result of the newly-enacted financial services legislation;

• Changes in trade, monetary and fiscal policies and laws;

• Securities and capital markets behavior, including changes in market liquidity and volatility;

• Changes in investor sentiment or consumer spending or savings behavior;

• Ability of the Firm to manage effectively its liquidity;

• Changes in credit ratings assigned to the Firm or its subsidiaries;

• Damage to the Firm’s reputation;

• Ability of the Firm to deal effectively with an economic slowdown or other economic or market disruption;

• Technology changes instituted by the Firm, its counterparties or competitors;

• Mergers and acquisitions, including the Firm’s ability to integrate acquisitions;

• Ability of the Firm to develop new products and services, and the extent to which products or services previously sold by the Firm require the Firm to incur liabilities or absorb losses not contemplated at their initiation or origination;

• Ability of the Firm to address enhanced regulatory requirements affecting its mortgage business;

• Acceptance of the Firm’s new and existing products and services by the marketplace and the ability of the Firm to increase market share;

• Ability of the Firm to attract and retain employees;

• Ability of the Firm to control expense;

180

• Competitive pressures;

• Changes in the credit quality of the Firm’s customers and counterparties;

• Adequacy of the Firm’s risk management framework;

• Adverse judicial or regulatory proceedings;

• Changes in applicable accounting policies;

• Ability of the Firm to determine accurate values of certain assets and liabilities;

• Occurrence of natural or man-made disasters or calamities or conflicts, including any effect of any such disasters, calamities or conflicts on the Firm’s power generation facilities and the Firm’s other commodity-related activities;

• The other risks and uncertainties detailed in Part 1, Item 1A: Risk Factors in the Firm’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Any forward-looking statements made by or on behalf of the Firm speak only as of the date they are made, and 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 statements were made. The reader should, however, consult any further disclosures of a forward-looking nature the Firm may make in any subsequent Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, or Current Reports on Form 8-K.

Item 3Quantitative 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 Management’s discussion and analysis on pages 81–84 of this Form 10-Q.

Item 4Controls 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 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of its disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Based on that evaluation, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer concluded that these disclosure controls and procedures were effective. See Exhibits 31.1 and 31.2 for the Certification statements issued by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer.

The Firm is committed to maintaining high standards of internal control over financial reporting. Nevertheless, because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.

Part II Other Information

Item 1Legal Proceedings

For information that updates the disclosures set forth under Part 1, Item 3 “Legal Proceedings” in the Firm’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K, see the discussion of the Firm’s material litigation in Note 23 on pages 160–169 of this Form 10-Q.

Item 1A Risk Factors

For a discussion of certain risk factors affecting the Firm, see Part I, Item 1A: Risk Factors, on pages 5–12 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K; and Forward-Looking Statements on pages 180–181 of this Form 10-Q.

Item 2 Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds

During the first quarter of 2011, shares of common stock of JPMorgan Chase & Co. were issued in transactions exempt from registration under the Securities Act of 1933, pursuant to Section 4(2) thereof, as follows: (i) on January 20, 2011, 9,172 shares were issued to retired directors who had deferred receipt of such common stock pursuant to the Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors; and (ii) on January 26, 2011, 17,566 shares were issued to retired employees who had deferred receipt of such common shares pursuant to the Corporate Performance Incentive Plan.

Stock repurchases under the stock repurchase program

On March 18, 2011, the Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of up to $15.0 billion of the Firm’s common stock, of which up to $8.0 billion is approved for 2011. The authorization commenced on March 22, 2011, and replaced the Firm’s previous $10.0 billion repurchase program. During the three months ended March 31, 2011, the Firm repurchased an aggregate of 2 million shares for $95 million at an average price per share of $45.66. For the four months ended April 30, 2011, the Firm has repurchased an aggregate of 18 million shares for $820 million at an average price per share of $45.11. As of March 31, 2011, $14.9 billion of authorized repurchase capacity remained, of which $7.9 billion of approved capacity remains for use during 2011.

Management and the Board will continue to assess and make decisions regarding alternatives for deploying capital, as appropriate, over the course of the year. Any planned use of the repurchase

181

program over the repurchases approved for 2011, will be reviewed by the Firm with the banking regulators before taking action.

The Firm may, from time to time, enter into written trading plans under Rule 10b5-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to facilitate repurchases in accordance with the repurchase program. A Rule 10b5-1 repurchase plan allows the Firm to repurchase its equity during periods when it would not otherwise be repurchasing common stock – for example during internal trading “black-out periods.” All purchases under a Rule 10b5-1 plan must be made according to a predefined plan established when the Firm is not aware of material nonpublic information.

The authorization to repurchase common stock will be utilized at management’s discretion, and the timing of purchases and the exact number of shares purchased is subject to various factors, including market conditions; legal considerations affecting the amount and timing of repurchase activity; the Firm’s capital position (taking into account goodwill and intangibles); internal capital generation; and alternative potential investment opportunities. The repurchase program does not include specific price targets or timetables; may be executed through open market purchases or privately negotiated transactions, including through the use of Rule 10b5-1 programs; and may be suspended at any time. For a discussion of restrictions on stock repurchases, see Note 23 on pages 267–268 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report.

					Dollar value of remaining
Three months ended	Total shares		Average price paid		authorized repurchase
March 31, 2011	repurchased		per share(a)		(in millions)(b)
January		—	$	—	$	3,222
February		—		—		3,222
March
Repurchases under the $10.0 billion program		—		—		—	(c)
Repurchases under the $15.0 billion program		2,081,440		45.66		14,905	(d)
First quarter		2,081,440	$	45.66	$	14,905

(a)	Excludes commissions cost.
(b)	The amount authorized by the Board of Directors excludes commissions cost.
(c)	The unused portion of the $10.0 billion program was cancelled when the $15.0 billion program was authorized.
(d)	Dollar value remaining under the new $15.0 billion program.

Stock repurchases under the stock-based incentive plans

Participants in the Firm’s stock-based incentive plans may have shares withheld to cover income taxes. Shares withheld to pay income taxes are repurchased pursuant to the terms of the applicable plan and not under the Firm’s share repurchase program. Shares repurchased pursuant to these plans during the first quarter of 2011 were as follows.

Three months ended	Total shares		Average price paid
March 31, 2011	repurchased		per share
January		124	$	44.78
February		—		—
March		318		46.33
First quarter		442	$	45.89

Item 3 Defaults Upon Senior Securities

None.

Item 5Other Information

None.

182

Item 6Exhibits

15 — Letter re: Unaudited Interim Financial Information.
31.1 — Certification^(a)
31.2 — Certification^(a)
32 — Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002^(a)(b)
101.INS XBRL Instance Document^(a)(c)
101.SCH XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document^(a)
101.CAL XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document^(a)
101.LAB XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document^(a)
101.PRE XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document^(a)
101.DEF XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document^(a)

(a)	Filed herewith.
(b)	This exhibit shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that Section. Such exhibit shall not be deemed incorporated into any filing under `the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
(c)	Pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T, includes the following financial information included in the Firm’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, formatted in XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language) interactive data files: (i) the Consolidated Statements of Income for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, (ii) the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, (iii) the Consolidated Statements of Changes in Stockholders’ Equity and Comprehensive Income for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, (iv) the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, and (v) the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

183

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.

		JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
		(Registrant)
Date: May 6, 2011	By	/s/ Louis Rauchenberger
		Louis Rauchenberger
		Managing Director and Controller
		[Principal Accounting Officer]

184

INDEX TO EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT NO.	EXHIBITS
15	Letter re: Unaudited Interim Financial Information.
31.1	Certification
31.2	Certification
32	Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002†
101.INS	XBRL Instance Document††
101.SCH	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document††
101.CAL	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document††
101.LAB	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document††
101.PRE	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document††
101.DEF	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document††

†	This exhibit shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that Section. Such exhibit shall not be deemed incorporated into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
††	As provided in Rule 406T of Regulation S-T, this information shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to liability under those sections.

185