Jim Mitchell: Right. Okay. Thanks a lot.
Operator: Next, we’ll go to line of Ebrahim Poonawala from Bank of America Merrill Lynch. You may proceed.
Ebrahim Poonawala: Hi, good morning. I guess maybe one question, looking at your statement, and I think Jamie is quoted as saying, as he sees the consumer as resilient and the market expecting a soft landing. I would love to hear. I’m not sure if Jamie’s on the call, but maybe, Jeremy, I would love to hear your thoughts around do you believe that the outlook for a soft landing has increased. Is the market pricing incorrectly, or when you look at your customer base, are you still worried about the lagged effects of the rate hikes?
Jeremy Barnum: Right. Okay, Ebrahim. So I think a lot of those things aren’t actually mutually exclusive. So, statement one, I think it’s uncontroversial that the economic outlook has evolved to include a significantly higher probability of a soft landing. That’s, I think, the consensus at this point. So whether you believe it or not is a separate issue. But I think that is the consensus. In terms of consumer resilience, I made some comments about this on the press call. The way we see it, the consumer is fine. All of the relevant metrics are now effectively normalized. And the question really, in light of the fact that cash buffers are now also normal, but that that means that consumers have been spending more than they’re taking in, is how that spending behavior adjusts as we go into the new year in a world where their cash buffers are less comfortable than they were.
So one can speculate about different trajectories that that could take. But I do think it’s important to take a step back and remind ourselves that consistent with that soft landing view, just in the central case modeling, obviously we always worry about the tail scenarios is a very strong labor market. And a very strong labor market means all else equal, strong consumer credit. So that’s how we see the world.
Ebrahim Poonawala: And maybe just taking that a step further, there has been concern around whether we see some of the CRE pain filtered into multifamily apartments. You all have a pretty large multifamily exposure, high quality. But just give us a sense of one, are you seeing any bleed-through of what we’ve seen in office in other areas of commercial real estate or any particular parts of C&I lending? Thank you.
Jeremy Barnum: Yes. So good question on the multifamily. And the short answer is that for us, it’s pretty uncontroversially, no bleed-through. And the reason is that while there is, we do – we are aware of some of the pressure on multifamily that’s in kind of different markets from the ones that we are actually big in. So it’s higher-end stuff in much less supply-constrained markets that is under more pressure. And as you know, our multifamily portfolio is much more affordable, supply-constrained markets. And so the performance there remains really very robust.
Ebrahim Poonawala: Got it. Thank you.
Operator: Next, we’ll go to the line of Erika Najarian from UBS. You may proceed.
Erika Najarian: Hi. Good morning. My first question is a follow-up on Matt’s with regarding the buyback. You printed 15% CET1 in the quarter. Your – on a net basis, net to RWA growth, your net income produces 51 basis points every quarter. Again, that’s net of RWA growth. I’m wondering what guideposts you’re looking for, Jeremy, in terms of that buyback increasing from that $2 billion a quarter. Do we need to wait for B3 finalization, which seems like it could be quite delayed? Or will having clarity in the June DFAST results, you mentioned the SCB sort of be enough that you could reconsider this pace over the medium-term?
Jeremy Barnum: Yes, Erika, it’s a good question, and I understand what you’re asking – why you’re asking it. I think the answer is going to be a little bit unsatisfying, which is that this is classic decision-making under uncertainty, and it’s kind of a probabilistic cloud of a variety of different factors. But all the ingredients that you’ve listed are the right ingredients, right? Very strong organic capital generation, uncertainty about the finalization of the rule, uncertainty about the SCB requirements, and obviously our normal capital hierarchy, which is that buybacks are always at the bottom of the hierarchy after we’re done using the capital for our other priorities. So I think what I said previously stands, which is that we’re sticking with a modest pace for now, but obviously, we have a lot of flexibility to adjust that whenever we want under the current regime, and we may well do that.
Erika Najarian: Thanks. And just as a follow-up, the $90 billion in expenses for 2024, does that contemplate a significant increase or the comeback of investment banking that everybody seems to be expecting for ’24?
Jeremy Barnum: A little bit of that is in there. Yes. So you would see that we often talk about the volume and revenue-related category, and I think in my prepared remarks, you will have noted that I talked about $1 billion increase in that category year-on-year as a result of an improved NIR outlook. So the hope and expectation of a continued rebound in the investment banking wallet, and our share of that is part of that.
Erika Najarian: Thank you.
Operator: Next, we’ll go to the line of Mike Mayo from Wells Fargo Securities. You may proceed.
