“So, as you look out to next year with the forward curve implying a much less biased evolution of Fed funds, you shouldn’t expect to see as many changes at least from rates.”

In context

“would have pretty damn good returns in a recession. I mean -- so I feel very good about that. Erika Najarian: And this is a super micro question as a follow-up for Jeremy. Why would Markets NII be zero next quarter? And should we expect that to be zero next year? Jeremy Barnum: Yes. Thanks, Erika. Jamie Dimon: We’re advancing the Markets businesses at the yield curve. So, you’re earning this and you’re paying to finance the training book. Jeremy Barnum: Yes, Erika. I mean, basically, as rates go up, the funding cost goes up. And the offsets on the other side, in many cases, work through derivatives or derivatives like instruments, so it goes through NIR. Fundamentally, we believe the Markets business revenue is rate insensitive. You can see that history through our disclosures this year. So, as you look out to next year with the forward curve implying a much less biased evolution of Fed funds, you shouldn’t expect to see as many changes at least from rates. Of course, we can sometimes see somewhat more unpredictable changes from balances, but that should be unbiased, one way or the other. Operator: The next question is coming from the line of Mike Mayo from Wells Fargo. Mike Mayo: Jamie, once again, I’m trying to reconcile your actions with your words. You’ve said publicly, you mentioned the hurricane. You mentioned a recession. You mentioned look out, and there are all sorts of risks. I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. On the other hand, your reserves to loans are still well below CECL day one. So, your actions with the reserving don’t seem to reflect your more pessimistic comments about the economy. So, how do I reconcile the two? Jamie Dimon: Yes. So, the way to do that is in our CECL -- in our reserves today, there is a significan”