“essentially expecting lower amounts of finance, non-interest-bearing assets on the balance sheet in the second half of the year.”

In context

“Jeremy Barnum: It's a great question, John. You correctly allude to the fact that we've said previously that the markets NII number is actually liability sensitive, all else equal. Obviously in the context of what we always say, which is that in general, changes in the markets NII, especially when they are driven by rates, are almost always fully offset in the bottom line through NIR. You're right. This quarter, all else equal, based on the higher rates, you would have expected markets NII to be down, and instead the forecast is up. The difference is changes in balance sheet composition, essentially expecting lower amounts of finance, non-interest-bearing assets on the balance sheet in the second half of the year. At this level of rates, one balance sheet unit of that stuff drives the number quite a bit if you think about it, and can overwhelm sort of the rate effect. That's what's going on there. To just indulge myself for 30 seconds, there's also another interesting nuance, which is you will have noted that we actually increased the equity allocation to the CIB this quarter for reasons that I think are pretty obvious in light of the amount of growth of supporting clients that we've done and the way that's playing through our RWA. The consequence of that is to move some equity essentially out of corporate into the CIB, a lot of that is markets. That obviously comes with a little bit of NII, that NII is moving out of NII ex-Markets into markets NII. It's sort of a rare exception to the rule that changes in markets NII are offset in the bottom line. This piece, which to be fair, is quite small, it's probably like $150 million, is a part of the increase that we would not expect to be offset on the bottom line, all else equal. Obviously it's left pocket, right pocket at the level of the company.”