“I would expect us to perform relatively better than we’ve disclosed so far.”

In context

“oil that down, thanks. Alastair Borthwick: Sure, well I’d say generally speaking, higher for longer is probably better for banks, as a general statement. The question will become why are rates higher, like what’s going on in the economy? Are we talking about inflation, is it under control, is it coming down? Right now, that appears to be the case, so that’s obviously a good place. The Fed’s in a good place because they appear to have rates that are a real rate that is high enough to make sure that inflation stays in a good place. Things can change, Matt, so an awful lot will depend upon just the why for rates; but generally speaking, if it’s just because it’s taken a little while longer for the inflation to nudge down before the next set of cuts, that’s probably a good environment for us. I would expect us to perform relatively better than we’ve disclosed so far. Then you’re asking a second question, which is around what does the sensitivity look like to plus-100 or minus-100. We’ve tried to just make sure that we continue to stay balanced. If anything, that corridor of plus-100, minus-100 has gotten narrower and narrower over time as we’re trying to lock in NII that’s $4 billion or $5 billion higher per quarter today than it was three years ago, and just make sure that the shareholder benefits from that through the course of time. We’ll see how the environment plays out - it’s only been a quarter since we were last here talking about six cuts. Now it’s three, so we just have to watch this play out and stay patient. Matt O’Connor: Okay, fair enough. That’s helpful, thank you. Operator: We’ll take our next question from Ken Usdin of Jefferies. Ken”