---

---

(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)	On March 18, 2011, the Board of Directors increased the Firm’s quarterly common stock dividend from $0.05 to $0.25 per share.

(c)	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.

(d)	Tier 1 common capital ratio (“Tier 1 common ratio”) is Tier 1 common capital divided by risk-weighted assets. The Firm uses Tier 1 common capital (“Tier 1 common”) along with the other capital measures to assess and monitor its capital position. For further discussion of Tier 1 common capital ratio, see Regulatory capital on pages 57–60 of this Form 10-Q.

(e)	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.

(f)	Excludes the impact of home lending purchased credit-impaired (“PCI”) loans. For further discussion, see Allowance for credit losses on pages 87–89 of this Form 10-Q.

(g)	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.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

(a)	Year-to-date 2010 included a payroll tax expense related to the United Kingdom (“U.K.”) Bank Payroll Tax on certain compensation awarded from December 9, 2009, to April 5, 2010, to relevant banking employees.

(b)	Included litigation expense of $1.3 billion and $4.3 billion for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively, compared with $1.5 billion and $5.2 billion for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively.

(c)	Included foreclosed property expense of $151 million and $535 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively, compared with $251 million and $798 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively.

---

---

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

---

---

(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).

(c)	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.

---

(a)

IB manages traditional credit exposures related to Global Corporate Bank (“GCB”) on behalf of IB and TSS. Effective January 1, 2011, IB and TSS 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 $440 million and $390 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, and $1.4 billion and $1.2 billion for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

(c)

The compensation expense as a percentage of total net revenue ratio for the nine months ended September 30, 2010, excluding the payroll tax expense related to the U.K. Bank Payroll Tax on certain compensation awarded from December 9, 2009, to April 5, 2010, to relevant banking employees, which is a non-GAAP financial measure, was 37%. IB excludes this tax from the ratio because it enables comparability between periods.

(d)	Fixed income markets primarily include revenue related to market-making across global fixed income markets, including foreign exchange, interest rate, credit and commodities markets.

(e)	Equity markets primarily include revenue related to market-making across global equity products, including cash instruments, derivatives, convertibles and Prime Services.

(f)

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 74–75 of the Credit Risk Management section of this Form 10-Q for further discussion.

---

---

(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; and (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 $320 million and $603 million were held against these nonaccrual loans at September 30, 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.

(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 DVA taken on derivative and structured liabilities to reflect the credit quality of the Firm. See VaR discussion on pages 90–92 and the DVA sensitivity table on page 92 of this Form 10-Q for further details.

(g)	Credit portfolio VaR includes the derivative 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.

(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 Investment Banking 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 the nine months ended September 30, 2011, and full-year 2010 reflects the removal of any withdrawn transactions. U.S. announced M&A represents any U.S. involvement ranking.

(a)	Regional revenue is 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.

---

(a)	Total net revenue included tax-equivalent adjustments associated with tax-exempt loans to municipalities and other qualified entities of $2 million and $2 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and $5 million and $8 million for the nine months ended September 30, 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 Consumer & Business Banking's CDI amortization expense related to prior business combination transactions of $60 million and $69 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and $180 million and $208 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

---

(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 $13.0 billion and $12.6 billion at September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Average balances of these loans totaled $16.5 billion and $15.3 billion for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and $16.1 billion and $14.0 billion for the nine months ended September 30, 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 September 30, 2011 and 2010, nonperforming assets excluded: (1) mortgage loans insured by U.S. government agencies of $9.5 billion and $9.2 billion, respectively, that are 90 or more days past due; and (2) real estate owned insured by U.S. government agencies of $2.4 billion and $1.7 billion, respectively. These amounts were excluded as reimbursement of insured amounts is proceeding normally. For further discussion, see Note 13 on pages 136–157 of this

---

(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 September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, which was also excluded from the applicable ratios. To date, no charge-offs have been recorded for these loans.

(a)

Consumer & Business 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 Consumer & Business Banking’s CDI amortization expense related to prior business combination transactions of $60 million and $69 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and $180 million and $208 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

---

---

(a)	Servicing expense includes both core and default servicing expense for all periods presented as well as $1.7 billion estimated litigation and other costs of foreclosure-related matters for the nine months ended September 30, 2011.

(b)	MSR risk management predominantly includes (a) changes in the MSR asset fair value due to changes in market interest rates and other modeled inputs and assumptions, and (b) changes in the value of the derivatives used to hedge the MSR asset. See Note 16 on pages 168–172 of this Form 10-Q for further information regarding changes in value of the MSR asset and related hedges.

---

---

(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 Mortgage repurchase liability on pages 53–56 of this Form 10-Q.

(b)	At September 30, 2011 and 2010, end-of-period loans owned included loans held-for-sale of $131 million and $428 million, respectively. No allowance for loan losses was recorded for these loans. These amounts were excluded when calculating the 30+ day delinquency rate.

(c)

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 $13.0 billion and $12.6 billion at September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Average balances of these loans totaled $16.5 billion and $15.3 billion for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and $16.1 billion and $14.0 billion for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

(d)	Average loans owned included loans held-for-sale of $108 million and $226 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and $105 million and $210 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively. These amounts were excluded when calculating the net charge-off rate.

(e)	At September 30, 2011 and 2010, excludes mortgage loans insured by U.S. government agencies of $10.5 billion and $10.2 billion, respectively, that are 30 or more days past due. These amounts were excluded as reimbursement of insured amounts is proceeding normally.

(f)	At September 30, 2011 and 2010, nonperforming assets excluded: (1) mortgage loans insured by U.S. government agencies of $9.5 billion and $9.2 billion, respectively, that are 90 or more days past due; and (2) real estate owned insured by U.S. government agencies of $2.4 billion and $1.7 billion, 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 Rural Housing Services.

(h)	The fair value of the MSR asset decreased $5.8 billion during the nine months ended September 30, 2011. See Note 16 on pages 168–172 of this Form 10-Q for further information regarding changes in value of the MSR asset and related hedges.

(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).

---

---

(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.

---

(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 September 30, 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 September 30, 2011 and 2010, the delinquency rate for PCI loans was 24.44% and 28.07%, 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.

---

(a)	Effective January 1, 2011, the commercial card business that was previously in TSS was transferred to Card. There is no material impact on the financial data; prior-year periods were not revised.

(b)	Included Commercial Card noninterest revenue of $76 million and $223 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively.

(c)	Included Commercial Card noninterest expense of $76 million and $220 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively.

---

---

(a)	Effective January 1, 2011, the commercial card business that was previously in TSS was transferred to Card. There is no material impact on the financial data; prior-year periods were not revised. The commercial card portfolio is excluded from business metrics and supplemental information where noted.

(b)	Total period-end loans included loans held-for-sale of $94 million and $39 million at September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

(c)	Total average loans included loans held-for-sale of $1 million and $112 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and $1.1 billion and $1.5 billion for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

(d)	Headcount included 1,274 employees related to the transfer of the commercial card business from TSS to Card in the first quarter of 2011.

(e)	Average loans included loans held-for-sale of $1 million and $1.1 billion for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively. These amounts are excluded when calculating the net charge-off rate.

(f)	Average loans included loans held-for-sale of $112 million and $1.5 billion for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively. These amounts are excluded when calculating the net charge-off rate.

(g)	Period-end loans included loans held-for-sale of $94 million at September 30, 2011. No allowance for loan losses was recorded for these loans. Loans held-

---

(h)	Period-end loans included loans held-for-sale of $39 million at September 30, 2010. This amount is excluded when calculating the allowance for loan losses to period-end loans and the 30+ day delinquency rate.

(i)	Excluded student loans insured by U.S. government agencies under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (“FFELP”) of $995 million and $1.0 billion at September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, that are 30 or more days past due. These amounts are excluded as reimbursement of insured amounts is proceeding normally.

(j)	Nonperforming assets excluded student loans insured by U.S. government agencies under the FFELP of $567 million and $572 million at September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, that are 90 or more days past due. These amounts are excluded as reimbursement of insured amounts is proceeding normally.

(k)	Reflects the impact of portfolio sales in the second quarter of 2011.

(l)	Supplemental information is provided for Card Services, 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.

(m)	For additional information on loan balances, delinquency rates, and net charge-off rates for the Washington Mutual portfolio, see Consumer credit portfolio, Credit Card, on page 86, and Note 13 on pages 155–157 of this Form 10-Q.

(n)	As a percentage of average loans.

(o)	Represents total net revenue less provision for credit losses.

(p)	Average loans included loans held-for-sale of $1 million and $1.1 billion for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively. These amounts are included when calculating the net charge-off rate.

(q)	Period-end loans included loans held-for-sale of $94 million at September 30, 2011. This amount is included when calculating the delinquency rates.

(r)	At September 30, 2011 and 2010, the 30+ day delinquent loans for Card Services, excluding Washington Mutual and Commercial Card portfolios, were $3,016 million and $5,035 million, respectively.

(s)	At September 30, 2011 and 2010, the 90+ day delinquent loans for Card Services, excluding Washington Mutual and Commercial Card portfolios, were $1,486 million and $2,630 million, respectively.

---

(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, totaling $90 million and $59 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively; and $222 million and $153 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

(c)	Effective January 1, 2011, product revenue from commercial card and standby letters of credit transactions was included in lending. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, the impact of the change was $109 million and $330 million, respectively. In prior-year periods, 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.

---

---

(a)	Corporate Client Banking was known as Mid-Corporate Banking prior to January 1, 2011.

(b)	Allowance for loan losses of $257 million and $535 million was held against nonaccrual loans retained at September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

(c)	Loans held-for-sale and loans at fair value were excluded when calculating the allowance coverage ratios and net charge-off rate.

---

(a)

IB manages traditional credit exposures related to GCB on behalf of IB and TSS. Effective January 1, 2011, IB and TSS share the economics related to the Firm’s GCB clients. Included within this allocation are net revenue, 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 business (of approximately $1.2 billion) that was previously in TSS was transferred to Card. There is no material impact on the financial data; the prior-year period was not revised.

---

---

(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. The impact of this change was $109 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011, and $330 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011. In previous periods, 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 firmwide revenue. The total FX revenue generated was $179 million and $143 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and $504 million and $455 million for the nine months ended September 30, 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 portfolio was transferred from TSS to Card.

---

---

(a)	Effective January 1, 2011, the methodology used to determine client advisors was revised. Prior periods have 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.

---

(a)	Excludes assets under management of American Century Companies, Inc., in which the Firm sold its ownership interest on August 31, 2011. The Firm previously had an ownership interest of 41% at September 30, 2010.

(b)	In the second quarter of 2011, the client hierarchy used to determine asset classification was revised, and the prior-year periods have been revised.

---

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

---

(a)	Total net revenue included tax-equivalent adjustments, predominantly due to tax-exempt income from municipal bond investments of $73 million and $58 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively; and $206 million and $163 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

(b)	Included litigation expense of $1.0 billion and $2.6 billion for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively, compared with $1.3 billion and $4.3 billion for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively.

(c)	Income tax expense/(benefit) in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, includes tax benefits recognized upon the resolution of tax audits.

---

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

(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 $853 million and $1.0 billion at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

---

(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 over a trailing 12-month period 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.

---

(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 104–116 and 173, respectively, of this Form 10-Q.

---

---

---

(a)	Excludes servicing revenue from loans sold to and securitized by third parties.

---

(a)

At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, represented the contractual amount net of risk participations totaling $617 million and $542 million, respectively, for Other unfunded commitments to extend credit; $21.2 billion and $22.4 billion, respectively, for Standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees; and $1.4 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 September 30, 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 $48.5 billion and $43.4 billion, respectively. These commitments also include liquidity facilities to nonconsolidated municipal bond VIEs; for further information, see Note 15 on pages 160–168 of this Form 10-Q.

(c)	At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included unissued Standby letters of credit commitments of $43.0 billion and $41.6 billion, respectively.

(d)	At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, JPMorgan Chase held collateral relating to $40.7 billion and $37.8 billion, respectively, of Standby letters of credit; and $1.5 billion and $2.1 billion, respectively, of collateral related to Other letters of credit.

(e)

At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, collateral held by the Firm in support of securities lending indemnification agreements totaled $200.8 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 119–126 and Note 21 on pages 176–180 of this Form 10-Q.

(g)

At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included unfunded commitments of $853 million and $1.0 billion, respectively, to third-party private equity funds; and $1.4 billion and $1.4 billion, respectively, to other equity investments. These commitments included $790 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 104–116 of this Form 10-Q. In addition, at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included letters of credit hedged by derivative transactions and managed on a market risk basis of $3.9 billion and $3.8 billion, respectively .

---

(i)	the level of outstanding unresolved repurchase demands,

(ii)	estimated probable future repurchase demands considering information about file requests, delinquent and liquidated loans, resolved and unresolved mortgage insurance rescission notices and the Firm’s 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.

---

(a)	Periods prior to June 30, 2011, have been revised to include repurchase demands and mortgage insurance rescission notices related to certain loans sold or deposited into private-label securitizations. The Firm’s outstanding repurchase demands are predominantly from the GSEs.

(b)	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.

(a)	Periods prior to June 30, 2011, have been revised to include mortgage insurance rescission notices related to certain loans sold or deposited into private-label securitizations.

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

---

(a)	Includes principal losses and accrued interest on repurchased loans, “make-whole” settlements, settlements with claimants, and certain related expenses. Make-whole settlements were $162 million and $225 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and $403 million and $480 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

(a)

This table includes (i) repurchases of mortgage loans due to breaches of representations and warranties, and (ii) loans repurchased from Ginnie Mae loan pools or packages as described in (b) below. This table excludes transactions with 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). The Firm typically elects to repurchase these delinquent loans as it continues to service them and/or manage the foreclosure process in accordance with applicable requirements of Ginnie Mae, the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”), Rural Housing Services (“RHS”) and/or the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”).

(c)	Predominantly all of the repurchases related to demands by GSEs.

(d)	Nonaccrual loans held-for-investment included $415 million and $354 million at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively, of loans repurchased as a result of breaches of representations and warranties.

---

•	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.

(a)

At September 30, 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 September 30, 2011, Tier 1 capital would be $128.2 billion and $95.3 billion, respectively, and corresponding Tier 1 capital ratios would be 10.5% and 9.3%, respectively. At September 30, 2011, Chase Bank USA, N.A. had no trust preferred capital debt securities.

(b)

The Tier 1 common ratio is Tier 1 common divided by RWA. 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 along with the other capital measures to assess and monitor its capital position.

(c)

Risk-weighted assets (“RWA”) 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. RWA also incorporates a measure for the market risk related to applicable trading assets. The resulting risk-weighted values for each of the risk categories are then aggregated to determine total RWA.

(d)	Included off–balance sheet RWA at September 30, 2011, of $311.0 billion, $299.7 billion and $35 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 RWA. Tier 1 capital consists of common stockholders’ equity, perpetual preferred stock, noncontrolling interests in subsidiaries and trust preferred capital debt securities, less goodwill, other intangible assets, the fair value of DVA on derivative and structured note liabilities related to the Firm's credit quality and certain other adjustments.

(g)	Total capital ratio is Total capital divided by RWA. 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 RWA.

(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

---

(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.

(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.

---

(a)

Key differences in the calculation of risk-weighted assets between Basel I and Basel III include: (a) Basel III credit risk RWA is based on risk-sensitive approaches which largely rely on the use of internal credit models and parameters, whereas Basel I RWA is based on fixed supervisory risk weightings which vary only by counterparty type and asset class; (b) Basel III market risk RWA reflects the new capital requirements related to trading assets and securitizations (released by the Basel Committee in July 2009), which include incremental capital requirements for stress VaR, correlation trading, and re-securitization positions; and (c) Basel III includes RWA for operational risk, whereas Basel I does not.

(b)	The Tier 1 common ratio is Tier 1 common divided by RWA.

---

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

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

(a)

Receivables from customers represents primarily margin loans to prime and retail brokerage customers, which are included in accrued interest and accounts receivable on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Interests in purchased receivables 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, which are included in other assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b)	The amounts in nonperforming represent commitments that are risk rated as nonaccrual.

(c)	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 pages 74–75 and Note 5 on pages 119–126 of this Form 10-Q.

(d)

At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, nonperforming assets excluded: (1) mortgage loans insured by U.S. government agencies of $9.5 billion and $9.4 billion, respectively, that are 90 or more days past due; (2) real estate owned insured by U.S. government agencies of $2.4 billion and $1.9 billion, respectively; and (3) student loans insured by U.S. government agencies under the FFELP of $567 million and $625 million, respectively, that are 90 or more days past due. 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 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)	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

---

(f)	At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, total nonaccrual loans represented 1.58% and 2.14% of total loans .

(g)	For the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, net charge-off rates were calculated using average retained loans of $689.0 billion and $690.1 billion, respectively. These average retained loans include average PCI loans of $68.0 billion and $75.8 billion, respectively. Excluding these PCI loans, the Firm’s total charge-off rates would have been 1.60% and 3.19%, respectively.

(h)	For the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, net charge-off rates were calculated using average retained loans of $683.1 billion and $702.5 billion, respectively. These average retained loans include average PCI loans of $69.8 billion and $78.1 billion, respectively. Excluding these PCI loans, the Firm’s total charge-off rates would have been 2.03% and 3.98%, respectively.

(a)

Receivables from customers represents primarily margin loans to prime and retail brokerage customers, which are included in accrued interests and accounts receivable on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Interests in purchased receivables represents ownership interests in cash flows of a pool of receivables transferred by third-party sellers into bankruptcy-remote entities, generally trusts, which are included in other assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(b)	The amounts in nonperforming represent commitments that are risk rated as nonaccrual.

(c)	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 pages 74–75, and Note 5 on pages 119–126 of this Form 10-Q.

(d)	Excludes assets acquired in loan satisfactions.

---

(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 profiles of retained loans and lending-related commitments are based on the remaining contractual maturity. The maturity profiles of derivative receivables are based on the maturity profile of average exposure. For further discussion of average exposure, see Derivative receivables MTM on pages 73–74 of this Form 10-Q.

---

---

(a)	All industry rankings are based on exposure at September 30, 2011. The industry rankings presented in the table as of December 31, 2010, are based on the industry rankings of the corresponding exposures at September 30, 2011, not actual rankings of such exposures at December 31, 2010.

(b)

In addition to the credit risk exposure to states and municipal governments at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, noted above, the Firm held $15.2 billion and $14.0 billion, respectively, of trading securities and $15.3 billion and $11.6 billion, respectively, of available-for-sale securities issued by state and municipal governments. For further information, see Note 3 and Note 11 on pages 104–116 and 130–134, respectively, of this Form 10-Q.

(c)	For more information on exposures to SPEs within all other, including liquidity facilities to nonconsolidated municipal bond VIEs, see Note 15 on pages 160–168 of this Form 10-Q. All other for credit derivative hedges includes credit default swap (“CDS”) index hedges of CVA.

(d)	Credit exposure is net of risk participations and excludes the benefit of credit derivative hedges and collateral held against derivative receivables or loans.

(e)	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.

---

(a)	At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, the Firm held an allowance for loan losses of $644 million and $1.6 billion, respectively, related to nonaccrual retained loans resulting in allowance coverage ratios of 21% and 29%, respectively. Wholesale nonaccrual loans represented 1.23% and 2.64% of total wholesale loans at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

---

---

(a)	Primarily consists of total return swaps and credit default swap options.

(b)	At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included $3,015 billion and $2,662 billion, respectively, of notional exposure where the Firm has sold protection on the identical underlying reference instruments.

---

---

(a)	Lending exposure includes both funded loans and undrawn commitments, and is presented net of the allowance for credit losses and cash and marketable securities collateral received under the credit agreements.

(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.

---

(a)	Represents the par value of available-for-sale securities.

(b)	Includes: (1) $1.5 billion of issuer exposure on debt and equity securities held in trading, as well as market-making CDS exposure and (2) $14.4 billion of derivative and securities financing counterparty exposure.

(c)

CDS exposure is presented on a net basis as such activities often result in selling and purchasing protection on the identical reference entity. As of September 30, 2011, the gross notional amount of CDS sold by the Firm across these five countries was more than 98% offset by the notional of CDS purchased on the identical reference entity. The Firm purchases CDS protection from counterparties that are domiciled outside of these countries and that are either investment-grade or well-supported by collateral arrangements. For further information about credit derivatives, see Credit derivatives on page 74 of this Form 10-Q.

(d)	Securities financing exposures are presented net of collateral received. As of September 30, 2011, there were approximately $18.3 billion of securities financings, which were collateralized with approximately $20.6 billion of marketable securities.

(e)	Includes cash and marketable securities pledged to the Firm. As of September 30, 2011, approximately 98% was cash.

(f)

Reflects net CDS protection purchased through the Firm's credit portfolio management activities, which are managed separately from its market-making activities. Predominately all of the CDS protection is purchased from investment-grade counterparties domiciled outside of these countries. The effectiveness of the Firm's CDS protection as a hedge of the Firm's exposures may vary depending upon a number of factors, including the contractual terms of the CDS. For further information about credit derivatives see Credit derivatives on page 74 of this Form 10-Q.

(g)	Lending exposure includes both funded loans and undrawn commitments, and is presented net of the allowance for credit losses and cash and marketable securities collateral received under the credit agreements. Corporate clients represent 75% of lending exposure.

---

---

(a)	At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, excluded operating lease–related assets of $4.3 billion and $3.7 billion, respectively.

(b)	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.

(c)	Represents prime mortgage loans held-for-sale.

(d)

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 notice or, in some cases, without notice as permitted by law.

(e)	Receivables from customers represents primarily margin loans and retail brokerage customers, which are included in accrued interests and accounts receivable on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(f)	Includes billed finance charges and fees net of an allowance for uncollectible amounts.

(g)	At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, nonaccrual loans excluded: (1) mortgage loans insured by U.S. government agencies of $9.5 billion and $9.4

---

(h)

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.

(i)	Average consumer loans held-for-sale were $109 million and $338 million, respectively, for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, and $1.2 billion and $1.7 billion, respectively, for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. These amounts were excluded when calculating net charge-off rates.

---

---

(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 $10.5 billion and $14.1 billion at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

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

(a)	Represents the contractual amount of principal owed at September 30, 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 least quarterly based on home valuation models that utilize nationally recognized home price index valuation estimates; such models incorporate actual data to the extent available and forecasted data where actual data is not available.

(c)	Represents current estimated combined LTV for junior home equity liens, 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 September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010. Prior-period amounts have been revised to conform to the current-period presentation.

---

---

(a)	Amounts represent the carrying value of restructured residential real estate loans.

(b)

At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, $3.8 billion and $3.0 billion, respectively, of loans modified subsequent to repurchase from Ginnie Mae in accordance with the standards of the appropriate government agency (i.e., FHA, VA, RHS) were excluded from loans accounted for as TDRs. When such loans perform subsequent to modification in accordance with Ginnie Mae guidelines, they are generally sold back into Ginnie Mae loan pools. Modified loans that do not re-perform become subject to foreclosure. For additional information about sales of loans in securitization transactions with Ginnie Mae, see Note 15 on pages 160–168 of this Form 10-Q.

(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 September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, nonaccrual loans included $997 million and $580 million, respectively, of TDRs for which the borrowers had not yet made six payments under the modified terms.

---

(a)

At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, nonperforming assets excluded: (1) mortgage loans insured by U.S. government agencies of $9.5 billion and $9.4 billion, respectively, that are 90 or more days past due; (2) real estate owned insured by U.S. government agencies of $2.4 billion and $1.9 billion, respectively; and (3) student loans insured by U.S. government agencies under the FFELP of $567 million and $625 million, respectively, that are 90 or more days past due. 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.

(c)	At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, consumer, excluding credit card nonaccrual loans represented 2.52% and 2.70%, respectively, of total consumer, excluding credit card loans.

•	Established an independent Compliance Committee which meets regularly and monitors progress against the Consent Orders.

•	Launched a single point of contact for borrowers to ensure effective coordination and communication related to foreclosure,

---

•	Enhanced its approach to oversight over third-party vendors for foreclosure or other related functions.

•	Standardized the processes for maintaining appropriate controls and oversight of the Firm’s activities with respect to the Mortgage Electronic Registration system (“MERS”) and compliance with MERSCORP’s membership rules, terms and conditions.

•	Strengthened its compliance program so as to ensure mortgage-servicing and foreclosure operations, including loss-mitigation and loan modification, comply with all applicable legal requirements.

•	Enhanced management information systems for loan modification, loss-mitigation and foreclosure activities.

•	Developed a comprehensive assessment of risks in servicing operations including, but not limited to, operational, transaction, legal and reputational risks.

---

---

(a)

Effective January 1, 2010, the Firm adopted accounting guidance related to VIEs. Upon adoption of the guidance, the Firm consolidated its sponsored credit card securitization trusts, its 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 included TDR reserves of $930 million and $980 million at September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

(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.

---

(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.

---

---

---

(a)	Downward 100- and 200-basis-point parallel shocks result in a Federal 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.

---

---

•	A one-notch downgrade in the Firm’s internal risk ratings for its entire wholesale loan portfolio could imply an increase in the Firm's modeled loss estimates of approximately $2.0 billion.

•	A 10% decline in home prices beyond current levels could imply an increase to modeled annual loss estimates for the residential real estate portfolio, excluding PCI loans, of approximately $0.7 billion.

•	A 50 basis point deterioration in forecasted credit card loss rates could imply an increase to modeled annualized credit card loan loss estimates of approximately $0.6 billion.

---

(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)	Includes mortgage, home equity and other loans, where the carrying value is based on the fair value of the underlying collateral at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010; and includes credit card loans carried on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at the lower of cost or fair value at December 31, 2010.

(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 $15.2 billion and $12.7 billion at September 30, 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 September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included $66.2 billion and $66.0 billion, respectively, of level 3 assets, consisting of recurring and nonrecurring assets carried by IB.

---

---

---

•	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 (including but not limited to mortgages and asset-backed securities) 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;

•	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 II, Item 1A: Risk Factors, on pages 202–204 of this Form 10-Q, Part II, Item 1A, Risk Factors on pages 181 and 192-193 of JPMorgan Chase's Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2011, and June 30, 2011, respectively, 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.

---

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

---

(a)	The following table presents information on assets and liabilities related to VIEs that are consolidated by the Firm at September 30, 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.

---

---

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.

---

---

---

(a)	At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included total U.S. government-sponsored enterprise obligations of $123.0 billion and $137.3 billion respectively, which were predominantly mortgage-related.

---

(b)

At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included within trading loans were $19.9 billion and $22.7 billion, respectively, of residential first-lien mortgages, and $1.8 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 $11.3 billion and $13.1 billion, respectively, and reverse mortgages of $4.0 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)

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 $15.2 billion and $12.7 billion at September 30, 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.

(f)	Private equity instruments represent investments within the Corporate/Private Equity line of business. The cost basis of the private equity investment portfolio totaled $9.5 billion and $10.0 billion at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

(g)	At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, balances included investments valued at net asset values of $11.0 billion and $12.1 billion, respectively, of which $5.0 billion and $5.9 billion, respectively, were classified in level 1, $1.5 billion and $2.0 billion, respectively, in level 2, and $4.5 billion and $4.2 billion, respectively, in level 3.

(h)	For the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, the transfers between levels 1, 2 and 3, were not significant. All transfers are assumed to occur at the beginning of the reporting period.

---

---

---

---

(a)	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 23% at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

(b)	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.

(c)

Realized gains/(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/(losses) are reported in other comprehensive income (“OCI”). Realized gains/(losses) and foreign exchange remeasurement adjustments recorded in income on AFS securities were $(426) million and zero for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010,

---

(d)	Changes in fair value for RFS mortgage servicing rights are reported in mortgage fees and related income.

(e)	Largely reported in other income.

(f)	Loan originations are included in purchases.

(g)	All transfers into and/or out of level 3 are assumed to occur at the beginning of the reporting period.

(a)	Reflects mortgage, home equity and other loans where the carrying value is based on the fair value of the underlying collateral.

(b)	Loans held-for-sale are carried on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at the lower of cost or fair value.

(c)	Represents, at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, fair value adjustments associated with $437 million and $517 million, respectively, of unfunded held-for-sale lending-related commitments within the leveraged lending portfolio.

(d)	Predominantly includes credit card loans at December 31, 2010.

(e)	For the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, the transfers between levels 1, 2 and 3 were not significant. All transfers are assumed to occur at the beginning of the reporting period.

(f)	The prior period has been revised to conform with the current presentation.

---

•

Derivative receivables included $39.7 billion of interest rate, credit, foreign exchange, equity and commodity contracts . Credit derivative receivables of $20.2 billion included $14.9 billion of structured credit derivatives with corporate debt underlying and $3.5 billion of credit default swaps largely on commercial mortgages where the risks are partially mitigated by similar and offsetting derivative payables. Interest rate derivative receivables of $6.8 billion include long-dated structured interest rate derivatives which are dependent on correlation. Foreign exchange derivative receivables of $4.5 billion included long-dated foreign exchange derivatives which are dependent on the correlation between foreign exchange and interest rates. Equity derivative receivables of $4.2 billion principally included long-dated contracts where the volatility levels are unobservable. Commodity derivative receivables of 4.0 billion largely included long-dated oil contracts.

•

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 168–172 of this Form 10-Q.

•

CLOs totaling $27.9 billion are securities backed by corporate loans. At September 30, 2011, $21.3 billion of CLOs were held in the AFS securities portfolio and $6.6 billion were included in Asset Backed Securities held in the trading portfolio. Substantially all of the 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 a further discussion of CLOs held in the AFS securities portfolio, see Note 11 on pages 130–134 of this Form 10-Q.

•

Trading loans totaling $11.6 billion included $5.5 billion of residential mortgage whole loans and commercial mortgage loans for which there is limited price transparency; and $4.0 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, for which valuation inputs are observable and liquid.

•	$6.2 billion increase in asset-backed AFS securities, predominantly driven by purchases of CLOs;

•	$5.5 billion increase in derivative receivables due to widening of credit spreads;

•	$4.4 billion decrease in MSRs. For further discussion of the change, refer to Note 16 on pages 168–172 of this Form 10-Q; and

•	$1.4 billion decrease in private equity investments, predominantly driven by net write-downs on private investments and sales.

•	$7.8 billion increase in asset-backed AFS securities, predominantly driven by purchases of CLOs;

•	$5.0 billion increase in derivative receivables due to widening of credit spreads, changes in interest rates and price movements in energy;

•	$5.8 billion decrease in MSRs. For further discussion of the change, refer to Note 16 on pages 168–172 of this Form 10-Q;

•	$2.8 billion decrease in trading assets – debt and equity instruments, largely driven by sales of trading loans;

---

•	$2.7 billion decrease in nonrecurring loans held-for-sale, predominantly driven by sales in the loan portfolios; and

•	$1.3 billion decrease in private equity investments, predominantly driven by sales of investments, partially offset by net increases in investment valuations and follow-on investments.

•	$4.9 billion of net gains on derivatives, predominantly driven by widening of credit spreads; and

•	$4.6 billion of losses on MSRs. For further discussion of the change, refer to Note 16 on pages 168–172 of this Form 10-Q.

•	$1.1 billion of net losses on derivatives, largely due to the tightening of credit spreads;

•	$1.3 billion of net gains on trading assets-debt and equity securities largely due to asset-backed securities and trading loans;

•	$784 million in gains related to long-term structured note liabilities, largely due to foreign exchange revaluation;

•	$827 million of gains in private equity largely driven by gains in investments in the portfolio; and

•	$1.5 billion of losses on MSRs.

•	$6.3 billion of losses on MSRs. For further discussion of the change, refer to Note 16 on pages 168–172 of this Form 10-Q;

•	$6.1 billion of net gains on derivatives, related to widening of credit spreads and changes in interest rates, partially offset by losses due to fluctuation in foreign exchange rates; and

•	$1.2 billion gain in private equity, primarily driven by gains on sales and net increases in investment valuations.

•	$5.2 billion of losses on MSRs; and

•	$963 million gain in private equity largely driven by gains in investments in the portfolio.

(a)	Derivatives credit valuation adjustments (“CVA”), gross of hedges, includes results managed by the 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 116–118 of this Form 10-Q.

(a)	Derivatives CVA, gross of hedges, includes results managed by the 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 116–118 of this Form 10-Q.

---

(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 on 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 with 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.

---

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

(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 CUSIP numbers.

(b)	Primarily represent securities sold, not yet purchased.

---

(a)

Total changes in instrument-specific credit risk related to structured notes were $901 million and $(246) million for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and $1.1 billion and $450 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively. These 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.

(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.

---

(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 125–126 of this Note.

(b)	Represents the sum of gross long and gross short third-party notional derivative contracts.

---

(a)	Excludes structured notes for which the fair value option has been elected. See Note 4 on pages 116–118 of this Form 10-Q and Note 4 on pages 187–189 of JPMorgan Chase’s 2010 Annual Report for further information.

(b)	Excludes $13 million and $21 million of foreign currency-denominated debt designated as a net investment hedge at September 30, 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.

---

(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 foreign exchange forward contracts. Amounts related to excluded components are recorded in current-period income.

(f)	Included $6.4 billion and $(6.2) billion for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and $1.4 billion and $(629) million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, of revenue related to certain foreign exchange trading derivatives designated as fair value hedging instruments.

---

(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 September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and nine months ended September 30, 2011. During the nine months ended September 30, 2010, the Firm reclassified a $25 million loss from accumulated other comprehensive income (“AOCI”) to earnings because the Firm determined that it was probable that forecasted interest payment cash flows related to certain wholesale deposits would not occur.

(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.

---

(a)

Certain components of hedging derivatives are permitted to be excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness, such as forward points on foreign exchange forward contracts. Amounts related to excluded components are recorded in current-period income. There was no ineffectiveness for net investment hedge accounting relationships during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

(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.

---

(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.

(a)	As permitted under U.S. GAAP, the Firm has elected to net cash collateral received and paid together with the related derivative receivables and derivative payables when a legally enforceable master netting agreement exists.

(b)	Represents cash collateral received and paid that is not subject to a legally enforceable master netting agreement, and liquid securities collateral held and transferred.

(c)

Represents liquid securities and cash collateral held and transferred 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, as well as collateral held and transferred related to contracts that have 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. 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 September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010.

---

(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.

---

(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 received by the Firm.

(a)	Includes realized gains and losses and unrealized losses on physical commodities inventory that is carried at the lower of cost or market, and gains and losses on commodity derivatives and other financial instruments that are carried at fair value through income. Commodity derivatives are frequently used to manage the Firm's risk exposure to its physical commodity inventory.

(b)	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.

---

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

(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.

---

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

---

(a)	The nine months ended September 30, 2010, includes a payroll tax expense related to the United Kingdom (“U.K.”) Bank Payroll Tax on certain compensation awarded from December 9, 2009, to April 5, 2010, to relevant banking employees.

(b)	Included litigation expense of $1.3 billion and $4.3 billion for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively, compared with $1.5 billion and $5.2 billion for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively.

(c)	Included foreclosed property expense of $151 million and $535 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively, compared with $251 million and $798 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively.

---

(a)	Proceeds from securities sold were within approximately 4% of amortized cost.

(b)	Includes other-than-temporary impairment losses recognized in income on certain prime mortgage-backed securities for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, and on certain prime mortgage-backed securities and obligations of U.S. states and municipalities for the nine months ended September 30, 2010.

(a)	Includes total U.S. government-sponsored enterprise obligations with fair values of $91.9 billion and $94.2 billion at September 30, 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 $93 million and $133 million (pretax) of unrealized losses related to prime mortgage-backed securities for which credit losses have been recognized in income at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively. These unrealized losses are not credit-related and remain reported in AOCI.

---

---

(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 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, and certain prime mortgage-backed securities and obligations of U.S. states and municipalities for the nine months ended September 30, 2010, 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.

---

---

(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 September 30, 2011.

(b)	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 three years for agency residential mortgage-backed securities, two years for agency residential collateralized mortgage obligations and five years for nonagency residential collateralized mortgage obligations.

---

(a)	At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included resale agreements of $22.2 billion and $20.3 billion, respectively, accounted for at fair value.

(b)	At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included securities borrowed of $14.6 billion and $14.0 billion, respectively, accounted for at fair value.

(c)	At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included repurchase agreements of $7.0 billion and $4.1 billion, respectively, accounted for at fair value.

---

•	Originated or purchased loans held-for-investment (i.e., “retained”), other than purchased credit-impaired (“PCI”) loans

•	Loans held-for-sale

•	Loans at fair value

•	PCI loans held-for-investment

(a)	Includes loans reported in IB, Commercial Banking (“CB”), Treasury & Securities Services (“TSS”), Asset Management (“AM”)

(b)	Includes loans reported in RFS, auto and student loans reported in Card Services & Auto (“Card”) and residential real estate loans reported in the Corporate/Private Equity segment.

(c)	Includes auto and business banking risk-rated loans that apply the wholesale methodology for determining the allowance for loan losses; these loans are managed by Card and RFS, respectively, and therefore, for consistency in presentation, are included with the other consumer loan classes.

---

(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 $2.5 billion and $1.9 billion at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

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

---

(a)	U.S. and non-U.S. distribution is determined based predominantly on the domicile of the borrower.

(b)	Credit quality of wholesale loans is assessed primarily through ongoing review and monitoring of an obligor's ability to meet contractual obligations rather than relying on the past due status, which is generally a lagging indicator of credit quality.  For a discussion of more significant risk 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 special-purpose entities (“SPEs”).

---

---

(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)	Represents the contractual amount of principal owed at September 30, 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 carrying value; net deferred loan fees or costs; and unamortized discount or premiums on purchased loans.

(a)	The related interest income on accruing impaired loans and interest income recognized on a cash basis were not material for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

---

(a)	New TDRs are predominantly term or payment extensions but also may include interest rate reductions and deferrals of principal and/or interest payments.

(b)	Sales and other are predominantly sales and paydowns, but may include performing loans restructured at market rates that are no longer reported as TDRs.

(c)	Includes loans to Financial institutions, Government agencies and Other.

---

---

•	For residential real estate loans, including both non-PCI and PCI portfolios: The current estimated 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 scored auto and business banking loans and student loans: Geographic distribution of the loans.

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

---

(b)

These balances, which are 90 days or more past due but insured by U.S. government agencies, are excluded from nonaccrual loans. In predominately all cases, 100% of the principal balance of the loans is insured and interest is guaranteed at a specified reimbursement rate subject to meeting agreed servicing guidelines. These amounts are excluded from nonaccrual loans because reimbursement of insured and guaranteed amounts is proceeding normally. At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, these balances included $5.9 billion and $2.8 billion, respectively, of loans that are no longer accruing interest because interest has been curtailed by the U.S. government agencies although, in predominantly all cases, 100% of the principal is still insured. For the remaining balance, interest is being accrued at the guaranteed reimbursement rate.

(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)	For senior lien home equity loans, prior-period amounts have been revised to conform with the current-period presentation.

(g)	At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included mortgage loans insured by U.S. government agencies of $13.6 billion and $12.9 billion, respectively.

(h)	At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, excluded mortgage loans insured by U.S. government agencies of $10.5 billion and $10.3 billion, respectively. These amounts were excluded as reimbursement of insured amounts is proceeding normally.

---

---

---

(a)	When discounted cash flows or collateral value equals or exceeds the recorded investment in the loan, the loan does not require an allowance.     This typically occurs when an impaired loan has been partially charged off.

(b)

At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, $3.8 billion and $3.0 billion, respectively, of loans modified subsequent to repurchase from Ginnie Mae in accordance with the standards of the appropriate government agency (i.e., Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”), U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), Rural Housing Services (“RHS”)) were excluded from loans accounted for as TDRs. When such loans perform subsequent to modification in accordance with Ginnie Mae guidelines, they are generally sold back into Ginnie Mae loan pools. Modified loans that do not re-perform become subject to foreclosure.

(c)	Represents the contractual amount of principal owed at September 30, 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.

---

---

---

(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)	September 30, 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 $995 million and $1.1 billion, respectively. These amounts were excluded as reimbursement of insured amounts is proceeding normally.

---

(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 September 30, 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 September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010.

(a)	There were no impaired student and other loans at September 30, 2011 and 2010.

(b)	The related interest income on impaired loans, including those on a cash basis, was not material for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010.

(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 September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, were immaterial.

(c)	There were no student and other loans modified in TDRs at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010.

---

---

(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.

(e)	For home equity loans, prior-period amounts have been revised to conform with the current-period presentation.

---

(a)	In general, HELOCs are open-ended, revolving loans for a 10-year period, after which time the HELOC converts to a loan with a 20-year amortization period.

(b)	Substantially all undrawn HELOCs within the revolving period have been closed.

(c)	Predominantly all of these loans have been modified to provide a more affordable payment to the borrower.

(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 September 30, 2011, other changes in expected cash flows were predominately driven by the impact of modifications. For the nine months ended September 30, 2011, other changes in expected cash flows were largely driven by the impact of modifications, but also related to changes in prepayment assumptions. For the three months ended September 30, 2010, other changes in expected cash flows were principally driven by changes in prepayment assumptions and modeling refinements related to modified loans. For the nine months ended September 30, 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.

---

(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 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.

---

(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 enrolled in a credit card modification program as of the date presented.

(d)

Represents credit card loans that were modified in TDRs but that have subsequently reverted back to the loans’ pre-modification payment terms. At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, approximately $804 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. Based on the Firm’s historical experience a substantial portion of these loans is expected to be charged-off in accordance with the Firm’s standard charge-off policy. The remaining $418 million and $590 million at September 30, 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.

(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.

---

(a)	Represents loans modified in TDRs that experienced a payment default in the period presented, and for which the payment default occurred within one year of the modification. The amounts presented represent the balance of such loans as of the end of the quarter in which they defaulted.

---

(a)

Effective January 1, 2010, the Firm adopted accounting guidance related to variable interest entities (“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 troubled debt restructuring.

(c)	At September 30, 2011 and 2010, the asset-specific consumer excluding credit card allowance for loan losses included TDR reserves of $930 million and $980 million, respectively. The asset-specific credit card allowance for loan losses is related to loans modified in TDRs.

(d)	At September 30, 2011 and 2010, the Firm’s allowance for loan losses on all impaired credit card loans was reclassified to the asset-specific allowance. This reclassification has no incremental impact on the Firm’s allowance for loan losses. Prior periods have been revised to reflect the current presentation.

(e)	Prior periods have been revised to conform with the current presentation.

(f)	Includes collateral-dependent residential mortgage loans that are charged off to the fair value of the underlying collateral less cost to sell. 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.

---

(a)	Effective January 1, 2010, the Firm adopted accounting guidance related to VIEs. Upon adoption of the guidance, the Firm consolidated its administered multi-seller conduits. As a result, related assets are now primarily recorded in loans and other assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

---

---

(a)	Excludes loan sales to U.S. government agencies. See page 166 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 169–171 of this Form 10-Q) and securities retained from loan sales to U.S. government agencies.

(e)	Excludes senior and subordinated securities of $229 million and $28 million, respectively, at September 30, 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 119–126 of this Form 10-Q for further information on derivatives.

(g)	Includes interests held in re-securitization transactions.

(h)

As of September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, 63% and 66%, respectively 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. The retained interests in prime residential mortgages consisted of $168 million and $157 million of investment-grade and $477 million and $552 million of noninvestment-grade retained interests at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively. The retained interests in commercial and other securitizations trusts consisted of $2.4 billion and $2.6 billion of investment-grade and $316 million and $250 million of noninvestment-grade retained interests at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively.

(i)

The Firm does not consolidate a mortgage securitization when it is not the servicer (and therefore does not have the power to direct the most significant activities of the trust) or does not hold a beneficial interest in the trust that could potentially be significant to the trust. At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, the Firm did not consolidate the assets of certain Firm-sponsored residential mortgage securitization VIEs, in which the Firm has continuing involvement, primarily due to the fact that the Firm did not hold an interest in these trusts that could potentially be significant to the trusts. Additionally, for the commercial mortgage securitization-related VIEs, the Firm does not service the loans and thus does not consolidate the VIEs.

---

---

(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 September 30, 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.

(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.

---

(a)	Includes residential and commercial mortgage securitizations as well as re-securitizations.

(b)	Primarily comprises student loans and municipal bonds.

(c)	Includes assets classified as cash, derivative receivables, AFS securities, and other assets within the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(d)	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.

(e)

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 $39.2 billion and $52.6 billion at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively. The maturities of the long-term beneficial interests as of September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, were as follows: $11.6 billion and $13.9 billion under one year, $19.2 billion and $29.0 billion between one and five years, and $8.4 billion and $9.7 billion over five years, all respectively.

(f)	Includes liabilities classified as accounts payable and other liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

---

(a)	Excludes sales for which the Firm did not securitize the loan (including loans sold to Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).

(b)	Included $1.9 billion and $5.0 billion, respectively, and $601 million and $1.2 billion, respectively, of proceeds from new securitizations received as securities for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. These securities were largely 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, loan repurchases due to representation and warranties and 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.

---

(a)	Predominantly to U.S. government agencies.

(b)	MSRs were excluded from the above table. See Note 16 on pages 169–171 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.

---

(a)	The Firm’s interests in subprime securitizations were $21 million and $14 million, as of September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively. Additionally, the Firm had interests in option ARM securitizations of $25 million and $29 million at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

(b)	Includes certain investments acquired in the secondary market but predominantly held for investment purposes.

(c)	CPR: constant prepayment rate.

(d)	Includes retained interests in Alt-A loans and re-securitization transactions.

---

(a)

Total assets held in securitization-related SPEs were $351.8 billion and $391.1 billion, respectively, at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010. The $284.5 billion and $326.5 billion, respectively, of loans securitized at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010 excludes: $59.3 billion and $56.0 billion, respectively, of securitized loans in which the Firm has no continuing involvement and $8.0 billion and $8.6 billion, respectively, of loan securitizations consolidated on the Firm’s Consolidated Balance Sheets at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010.

(b)	Includes Alt-A loans.

(c)	Includes securitized loans that were previously recorded at fair value and classified as trading assets.

---

(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.

---

(a)	Predominantly represents modeled MSR asset amortization.

(b)	Represents the aggregate impact of changes in model inputs and assumptions such as costs to service, home prices, mortgage spreads, ancillary income, and assumptions used to derive prepayment speeds, as well as changes to the valuation models themselves.

(c)	Includes changes related to commercial real estate of $(3) million and $(2) million for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and $(7) million and $(6) million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

(d)	Includes $33 million and $35 million related to commercial real estate at September 30, 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.

---

(a)	Predominantly represents modeled MSR asset amortization.

(b)	Represents the aggregate impact of changes in model inputs and assumptions such as costs to service, home prices, mortgage spreads, ancillary income, and assumptions used to derive prepayment speeds, as well as changes to the valuation models themselves.

---

(a)	The decrease in the gross amount and accumulated amortization from December 31, 2010, was due to the removal of fully amortized assets.

(a)	Includes $226 million, $80 million, $216 million, and $119 million of amortization expense related to purchased credit card relationships, other credit card-related intangibles, core deposit intangibles and other intangibles, respectively, recognized during the nine months ended September 30, 2011.

---

(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.

(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 $9.4 billion and $9.9 billion accounted for at fair value at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

(c)	Includes other borrowed funds of $10.0 billion and $14.8 billion secured by assets totaling $9.9 billion and $15.0 billion at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

---

(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 197 million and 236 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and 112 million and 233 million for the nine months ended September 30, 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.

---

(a)

Reflects the effect of adoption of accounting guidance related to the consolidation of VIEs, and to embedded credit derivatives in beneficial interests in securitized financial assets. 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. AOCI decreased by $15 million due to the adoption of the new guidance related to credit derivatives embedded in certain of the Firm’s AFS securities; for further discussion see Note 6 on pages 191-199 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 September 30, 2011, January 1, 2011, September 30, 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 $(57) million, $(81) million$(97) million and $(226) million, respectively.

(d)

The net change for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, was due primarily to increased market value on agency mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”)and municipal securities, partially offset by the widening of spreads on non-U.S. corporate debt and realization of gains due to portfolio repositioning. The net change for the nine months ended September 30, 2010, was due primarily to the narrowing of spreads on commercial and non-agency MBS as well as on collateralized loan obligations; also reflects increased market value on pass through MBS.

(e)

The net change for the nine months ended September 30, 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 $(258) million and $187 million, respectively, partially offset by after-tax gains/(losses) on hedges of $48 million and $9 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 nine months ended September 30, 2011, included $145 million of after-tax gains/(losses) recognized in income, and $(7) million of after-tax gains/(losses), representing the net change in derivative fair value that was reported in comprehensive income. The net change for the nine months ended Sept 30, 2010, included $53 million of after-tax gains recognized in income and $195 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 nine month periods ended September 30, 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.

---

---

(a)

At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, represented the contractual amount net of risk participations totaling $617 million and $542 million, respectively, for Other unfunded commitments to extend credit; $21.2 billion and $22.4 billion, respectively, for Standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees; and $1.4 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.

(b)

At September 30, 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 $48.5 billion and $43.4 billion, respectively. These commitments also include liquidity facilities to nonconsolidated municipal bond VIEs; for further information, see Note 15 on pages 160–168 of this Form 10-Q.

(c)	At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included unissued Standby letters of credit commitments of $43.0 billion and $41.6 billion, respectively.

(d)	At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, JPMorgan Chase held collateral relating to $40.7 billion and $37.8 billion, respectively, of Standby letters of credit; and $1.5 billion and $2.1 billion, respectively, of Other letters of credit.

(e)	At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, collateral held by the Firm in support of securities lending indemnification agreements was $200.8 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 September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, reflected derivative payables of $823 million and $390 million, respectively, less derivative receivables of $105 million and $96 million, respectively.

(g)

At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, the amount of commitments related to forward starting reverse repurchase agreements and securities borrowing agreements were $20.4 billion and $14.4 billion, respectively. Commitments related to unsettled reverse repurchase agreements and securities borrowing agreements with regular way settlement periods were $49.3 billion and $25.5 billion, at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

(h)

At September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included unfunded commitments of $853 million and $1.0 billion, respectively, to third-party private equity funds; and $1.4 billion and $1.4 billion, respectively, to other equity investments. These commitments included $790 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 104–116 of this Form 10-Q. In addition, at September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included letters of credit hedged by derivative transactions and managed on a market risk basis of $3.9 billion and $3.8 billion, respectively.

(i)	Represents the 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 page 179 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.

---

(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 September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, represented contractual amount net of risk participations totaling $21.2 billion and $22.4 billion, respectively, for Standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees; and $1.4 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 September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, included unissued Standby letters of credit commitments of $43.0 billion and $41.6 billion, respectively.

---

(a)	Includes principal losses and accrued interest on repurchased loans, “make-whole” settlements, settlements with claimants, and certain related expenses. Make-whole settlements were $162 million and $225 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and $403 million and $480 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

(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 traditional credit exposures related to the Global Corporate Bank (“GCB”) on behalf of IB and TSS. Effective January 1, 2011, IB and TSS share the economics related to the Firm’s GCB clients. Included within this allocation are net revenue, 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 and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, were as follows.

---

---

(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 September 30, 2010, were $15.5 billion.

(d)	For the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, the annualized rates for AFS securities, based on amortized cost, were 2.71% and 2.74%, respectively.

(e)	Reflects a benefit from the favorable market environments for dollar-roll financings in the third quarter of 2010.

---

(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 nine months ended September 30, 2010, were $16.2 billion.

(d)	For the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, the annualized rates for AFS securities, based on amortized cost, were 2.93% and 3.18%, respectively.

(e)	Reflects a benefit from the favorable market environments for dollar-roll financings during the nine months ended September 30, 2010.

---

---

---

---

---

(a)	Operating revenue comprises:

(b)	Risk management comprises:

---

---

---

---

---

---

(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 canceled when the $15.0 billion program was authorized.

(d)	Dollar value remaining under the new $15.0 billion program.

---

(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 September 30, 2011, formatted in XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language) interactive data files: (i) the Consolidated Statements of Income for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, (ii) the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, (iii) the Consolidated Statements of Changes in Stockholders’ Equity and Comprehensive Income for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, (iv) the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, and (v) the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

---

---

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of JPMorgan Chase & Co.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

(a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)	Designed such internal controls over financial reporting, or caused such internal controls over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of JPMorgan Chase & Co.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

(a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)	Designed such internal controls over financial reporting, or caused such internal controls over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

1.	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.	The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of JPMorgan Chase & Co.