J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO.
Table of Contents

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Annual report pursuant to section 13 or 15(d)
of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
     
For the fiscal year ended   Commission file
December 31, 2003   number 1-5805

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
     
Delaware   13-2624428
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
  (I.R.S. employer
identification no.)
     
270 Park Avenue, New York, NY   10017
(Address of principal executive offices)   (Zip code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (212) 270-6000

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Title of each class

 
Common stock
Depositary shares representing a one-tenth interest in 6⅝% cumulative preferred stock (stated value—$500)
Adjustable rate cumulative preferred stock, Series A
(stated value—$100)
Adjustable rate cumulative preferred stock, Series L
(stated value—$100)
Adjustable rate cumulative preferred stock, Series N
(stated value—$25)
6.50% subordinated notes due 2005
6.25% subordinated notes due 2006
6% subordinated notes due 2008
6.75% subordinated notes due 2008
6.50% subordinated notes due 2009
Guarantee of 7.03% Capital Securities, Series E, of
Chase Capital V
Guarantee of 7.00% Capital Securities, Series G, of
Chase Capital VII
Guarantee of 8.25% Capital Securities, Series H, of
Chase Capital VIII
 
Guarantee of 7.50% Capital Securities, Series I, of
J.P. Morgan Chase Capital IX
Guarantee of 7.00% Capital Securities, Series J, of
J.P. Morgan Chase Capital X
Guarantee of 5% Capital Securities, Series K, of
J.P. Morgan Chase Capital XI
Guarantee of 6.25% Capital Securities, Series L, of
J.P. Morgan Chase Capital XII
Indexed Linked Notes on the S&P 500® Index due November 26, 2007
JPMorgan Market Participation Notes on the S&P 500® Index due March 12, 2008
Capped Quarterly Observation Notes Linked to S&P 500® Index due September 28, 2008
Capped Quarterly Observation Notes Linked to S&P 500® Index due October 30, 2008
Capped Quarterly Observation Notes Linked to S&P 500® Index due January 21, 2009
Consumer Price Indexed Securities due January 15, 2010


The Indexed Linked Notes, JPMorgan Market Participation Notes, Capped Quarterly Observation Notes and Consumer
Price Indexed Securities are listed on the American Stock Exchange;
all other securities named above are listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: none

Number of shares of common stock outstanding on January 31, 2004: 2,058,165,766

      Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ..X.. No .....

      Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [X]

      Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). Yes ..X.. No .....

      The aggregate market value of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. common stock held by non-affiliates of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. on June 30, 2003 was approximately $69,498,000,000.

Document Incorporated by Reference: Portions of Registrant’s proxy statement for the 2004 annual meeting of stockholders, which will be filed within 120 days of registrant’s fiscal year-end, are incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K in response to Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Part III.

 


Form 10-K Index

         
Part I       Page
Item 1      1
       1
       1
       1
       1
       5
       7
       132-136
       129, 132
       137
       52-64, 98-99, 138-139
       64-65, 100, 141-142
       142-143
       143
Item 2      7
Item 3      8
Item 4      11
       11
Part II  
 
   
Item 5      12
Item 6      12
Item 7      12
Item 7A      12
Item 8      12
Item 9      12
Item 9A      12
Part III  
 
   
Item 10      12
Item 11      12
Item 12      13
Item 13      13
Item 14      13
Part IV  
 
   
Item 15      14
 COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 CERTIFICATION
 CERTIFICATION
 CERTIFICATION


Table of Contents

Part I

Item 1: Business

On January 14, 2004, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (“JPMorgan Chase”) and Bank One Corporation (“Bank One”) announced an agreement to merge. The merger agreement between JPMorgan Chase and Bank One has been approved by the boards of directors of both companies. The merger is subject to approval by the shareholders of both institutions as well as U.S. federal and state and non-U.S.

regulatory authorities. Completion of the transaction is expected to occur in mid-2004. See Agreement to merge with Bank One Corporation on page 24 for a further description of the merger.

The information presented in this Annual Report on Form 10-K does not give effect to the merger.




Overview

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (“JPMorgan Chase” or “the Firm”) is a financial holding company incorporated under Delaware law in 1968. As of December 31, 2003, JPMorgan Chase was one of the largest banking institutions in the United States, with $771 billion in assets and $46 billion in stockholders’ equity.

JPMorgan Chase is a global financial services firm with operations in more than 50 countries. Its principal bank subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank (“JPMorgan Chase Bank”), a New York banking corporation headquartered in New York City, and Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National Association (“Chase USA”), headquartered in Delaware. The Firm’s principal nonbank subsidiary is J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. (“JPMSI”).

The bank and nonbank subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase operate nationally as well as through overseas branches and subsidiaries, representative offices and affiliated banks.

The Firm’s website is www.jpmorganchase.com. JPMorgan Chase makes available free of charge, through its website, annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished, pursuant to Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as soon as reasonably practicable after it electronically files such material with, or furnishes such material to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The Firm has adopted, and posted on its website, a Code of Ethics for its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer and other senior financial officers.

Business segments

JPMorgan Chase’s activities are internally organized, for management reporting purposes, into five major business segments (Investment Bank, Treasury & Securities Services, Investment Management & Private Banking, JPMorgan Partners and Chase Financial Services). A description of the Firm’s business segments and the products and services they provide to their respective client bases are discussed in the “Segment results” section of Management’s discussion and analysis (“MD&A”) beginning on page 27, and in Note 34 on page 126.

Competition

JPMorgan Chase and its subsidiaries and affiliates operate in a highly competitive environment. Competitors include other banks,

brokerage firms, investment banking companies, merchant banks, insurance companies, mutual fund companies, credit card companies, mortgage banking companies, automobile financing companies, leasing companies, e-commerce and other Internet-based companies, and a variety of other financial services and advisory companies. JPMorgan Chase’s businesses compete with these other firms with respect to the range of products and services offered and the types of clients, customers, industries and geographies served. With respect to some of its geographies and products, JPMorgan Chase competes globally; with respect to others, the Firm competes on a regional basis. JPMorgan Chase’s ability to compete effectively depends on the relative performance of its products, the degree to which the features of its products appeal to customers, and the extent to which the Firm is able to meet its clients’ objectives or needs. The Firm’s ability to compete also depends on its ability to attract and retain its professional and other personnel, and on its reputation.

The financial services industry has experienced consolidation and convergence in recent years, as financial institutions involved in a broad range of financial services industries have merged. This convergence trend is expected to continue, as demonstrated by the proposed merger of JPMorgan Chase and Bank One. Consolidation could result in competitors of JPMorgan Chase gaining greater capital and other resources, such as a broader range of products and services and geographic diversity. It is possible that competition will become even more intense as the Firm continues to compete with financial institutions that may be larger, or better capitalized, or may have a stronger local presence in certain geographies.

Supervision and regulation

Permissible business activities: The Firm is subject to regulation under state and federal law, including the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHCA”).

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”), enacted in 1999, bank holding companies meeting certain eligibility criteria may elect to become “financial holding companies,” which may engage in any activities that are “financial in nature,” as well as in additional activities that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve Board”) and the United States Department of the Treasury (“U.S. Treasury Department”) determine are financial in nature or incidental or complementary to financial activities. Under GLBA, “financial activities” specifically



1


Table of Contents

Part I

include insurance, securities underwriting and dealing, merchant banking, investment advisory and lending activities. JPMorgan Chase elected to become a financial holding company as of March 13, 2000.

Under regulations implemented by the Federal Reserve Board, if any depository institution controlled by a financial holding company ceases to be “well-capitalized” or “well-managed” (as defined below), the Federal Reserve Board may impose corrective capital or managerial requirements on the financial holding company and place limitations on its ability to conduct the broader financial activities permissible for financial holding companies.

In addition, the Federal Reserve Board may require divestiture of the holding company’s depository institutions if the deficiencies persist. The regulations also provide that if any depository institution controlled by a financial holding company fails to maintain a satisfactory rating under the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”), the Federal Reserve Board must prohibit the financial holding company and its subsidiaries from engaging in any additional activities other than those permissible for bank holding companies that are not financial holding companies. The depository institution subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase currently meet the capital, management and CRA requirements necessary to permit the Firm to conduct the broader activities permitted under GLBA. However, there can be no assurance that this will continue to be the case in the future.

Regulation by Federal Reserve Board under GLBA: Under GLBA’s system of “functional regulation,” the Federal Reserve Board acts as an “umbrella regulator,” and certain of JPMorgan Chase’s subsidiaries are regulated directly by additional regulatory authorities based on the particular activities of those subsidiaries (e.g., securities and investment advisory activities are regulated by the SEC, and insurance activities are regulated by state insurance commissioners). The Firm must continue to file reports and other information with, and submit to examination by, the Federal Reserve Board as umbrella regulator. However, under GLBA, with respect to matters affecting functionally regulated subsidiaries, the Federal Reserve Board is required to defer to the applicable functional regulators unless the Federal Reserve Board concludes that the activities at issue pose a risk to a depository institution or breach a specific law the Federal Reserve Board has the authority to enforce.

Dividend restrictions: Federal law imposes limitations on the payment of dividends by the subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase that are chartered by a state and are member banks of the Federal Reserve System (a “state member bank”) or national banks. Nonbank subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase are not subject to those limitations. The amount of dividends that may be paid by a state member bank, such as JPMorgan Chase Bank, or by a national bank, such as Chase USA, is limited to the lesser of the amounts calculated under a “recent earnings” test and an “undivided profits” test. Under the recent earnings test, a dividend may not be paid if the total of all dividends declared by a bank in any calendar year is in excess of the current year’s net income combined with the retained net income of the two preceding years, unless the bank obtains the approval of its appropriate federal banking regulator (which, in the case of a state member bank, is the Federal Reserve Board and, in the case of a national bank, is the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “Comptroller of the Currency”)). Under the undivided profits

test, a dividend may not be paid in excess of a bank’s “undivided profits.” Similar restrictions on the payment of dividends by JPMorgan Chase Bank are imposed by New York law. See Note 25 on page 114 for the amount of dividends that the Firm’s principal bank subsidiaries could pay, at December 31, 2003 and 2002, to their respective bank holding companies without the approval of their relevant banking regulators.

In addition to the dividend restrictions described above, the Federal Reserve Board, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) have authority to prohibit or to limit the payment of dividends by the banking organizations they supervise, including JPMorgan Chase and its bank and bank holding company subsidiaries, if, in the banking regulator’s opinion, payment of a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice in light of the financial condition of the banking organization.

Capital requirements: The federal banking regulators have adopted risk-based capital and leverage guidelines that require the Firm’s capital-to-assets ratios to meet certain minimum standards.

The risk-based capital ratio is determined by allocating assets and specified off-balance sheet financial instruments into four weighted categories, with higher levels of capital being required for the categories perceived as representing greater risk. Under the guidelines, capital is divided into two tiers: Tier 1 capital and Tier 2 capital. For a further discussion of Tier 1 capital and Tier 2 capital, see Note 26 on page 114. The amount of Tier 2 capital may not exceed the amount of Tier 1 capital. Total capital is the sum of Tier 1 capital and Tier 2 capital.

Banking organizations are required to maintain a total capital ratio (total capital to risk-weighted assets) of 8% and a Tier 1 capital ratio of 4%.

The risk-based capital requirements explicitly identify concentrations of credit risk and certain risks arising from non-traditional banking activities, and the management of those risks, as important factors to consider in assessing an institution’s overall capital adequacy. Other factors taken into consideration by federal regulators include: interest rate exposure; liquidity, funding and market risk; the quality and level of earnings; the quality of loans and investments; the effectiveness of loan and investment policies; and management’s overall ability to monitor and control financial and operational risks, including the risks presented by concentrations of credit and non-traditional banking activities. In addition, the risk-based capital rules incorporate a measure for market risk in foreign exchange and commodity activities and in the trading of debt and equity instruments. The market risk-based capital rules require banking organizations with large trading activities (such as JPMorgan Chase) to maintain capital for market risk in an amount calculated by using the banking organizations’ own internal Value-at-Risk models (subject to parameters set by the regulators).

The federal banking agencies have also implemented specialized capital requirements with respect to securitizations and equity in nonfinancial companies.

The federal banking regulators have established minimum leverage ratio guidelines. The leverage ratio is defined as Tier 1 capital divided by average total assets (net of the allowance for loan losses, goodwill and certain intangible assets). The minimum leverage ratio is 3% for strong bank holding companies (i.e., those rated



2


Table of Contents

composite 1 under the Bank subsidiaries, Other subsidiaries, Parent company, Earnings and Capital adequacy, or “BOPEC,” rating system) and for bank holding companies that have implemented the Federal Reserve Board’s risk-based capital measure for market risk. Other bank holding companies must have a minimum leverage ratio of 4%. Bank holding companies may be expected to maintain ratios well above the minimum levels depending upon their particular condition, risk profile and growth plans.

Tier 1 components: Capital surplus and common stock remain the most important forms of capital at JPMorgan Chase. Because common equity has no maturity date and because dividends on common stock are paid only when and if declared by the Board of Directors, common equity is available to absorb losses over long periods of time. Noncumulative perpetual preferred stock is similar to common stock in its ability to absorb losses. If the Board of Directors does not declare a dividend on noncumulative perpetual preferred stock in any dividend period, the holders of the instrument are never entitled to receive that dividend payment. JPMorgan Chase’s outstanding noncumulative preferred stock is a type commonly referenced as a “FRAP”: a fixed-rate/adjustable preferred stock. However, because the interest rate on FRAPs may increase (up to a predetermined ceiling), the Federal Reserve Board treats the Firm’s noncumulative FRAPs in a manner similar to cumulative perpetual preferred securities. The Federal Reserve Board permits cumulative perpetual preferred securities to be included in Tier 1 capital but only up to certain limits, as these financial instruments do not provide as strong protection against losses as common equity and noncumulative, non-FRAP securities. Cumulative perpetual preferred stock does not have a maturity date, similar to other forms of Tier 1 capital. However, any dividends not declared on cumulative preferred stock accumulate and thus continue to be due to the holder of the instrument until all arrearages are satisfied. Currently, the Federal Reserve Board also permits trust preferred securities to be included in Tier 1 capital up to certain limits. Trust preferred securities are a type of security generally issued by a special-purpose trust established and owned by JPMorgan Chase. Proceeds from the issuance to the public of the trust preferred security are lent to the Firm for at least 30 (but not more than 50) years. The intercompany note that evidences this loan provides that the interest payments by JPMorgan Chase on the note may be deferred for up to five years. During the period of any such deferral, no payments of dividends may be made on any outstanding JPMorgan Chase preferred or common stock or on the outstanding trust preferred securities issued to the public. During 2003, the Firm implemented Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) Interpretation No. 46 Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities (FIN 46), which addresses the consolidation rules to be applied to entities defined in FIN 46, as “variable interest entities.” Prior to FIN 46, trusts that issued trust preferred securities were consolidated subsidiaries of their respective parents. As a result of FIN 46, JPMorgan Chase is no longer permitted to consolidate these trusts. As a result, it is possible that the Federal Reserve Board may conclude that trust preferred securities would no longer qualify as treatment as Tier 1 regulatory capital. Although the Federal Reserve Board has issued a supervisory letter indicating that trust preferred securities will continue at present to be treated as Tier 1 capital until notice is given to the contrary, such guidance also indicated that the Federal

Reserve Board may provide further guidance on this point. Therefore, there is no certainty that trust preferred securities will continue to be treated as Tier 1 capital instruments or that existing issues will be grandfathered for such treatment.

Tier 2 components: Long-term subordinated debt (generally having an original maturity of 10-12 years) is the primary form of JPMorgan Chase’s Tier 2 capital. Subordinated debt is deemed a form of regulatory capital because payments on the debt are subordinated to other creditors of JPMorgan Chase, including holders of senior and medium long-term debt and counterparties on derivative contracts.

The minimum risk-based capital requirements adopted by the federal banking agencies follow the Capital Accord of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. The Basel Committee, which is comprised of bank supervisors and central banks from the Group of Ten countries, issued its Capital Accord in 1988 to achieve convergence in the capital regulations applicable to internationally active banking organizations. The Basel Committee issued a proposed replacement for the Capital Accord in January 2001 and, subsequently, issued a number of working papers supplementing various aspects of that replacement (the “New Accord”). Based on these documents, the New Accord would adopt a three-pillar framework for addressing capital adequacy. These pillars would include minimum capital requirements, more emphasis on supervisory assessment of capital adequacy and greater reliance on market discipline. The minimum capital requirements in the New Accord would also incorporate a capital charge for operational risk. In August 2003, the federal banking regulators issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) addressing the implementation of the New Accord in the United States. The ANPR contemplates requiring all U.S. banking institutions with either total banking assets of at least $250 billion or more or total on-balance sheet foreign exposure of $10 billion or more (“core banks”) to implement the advanced approaches for measuring risk under the New Accord on a mandatory basis. As a core bank, JPMorgan Chase will thus be required to implement advanced measurement techniques employing its internal estimates of certain key risk drivers to derive capital requirements. Prior to implementation of the new capital regime, core banks, such as JPMorgan Chase, will be required to demonstrate to their primary federal supervisor that their internal criteria meet relevant supervisory standards. While the Basel Supervisors Committee has targeted December 31, 2006 for implementation of the New Accord, the U.S. regulators have proposed an effective date of January 1, 2007 with certain transitional implementation arrangements.

FDICIA: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”) provides a framework for regulation of depository institutions and their affiliates, including parent holding companies, by their federal banking regulators and, among other things, requires the relevant federal banking regulator to take “prompt corrective action” with respect to a depository institution if that institution does not meet certain capital adequacy standards.

Pursuant to FDICIA, the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC and the Comptroller of the Currency adopted regulations setting forth a five-tier scheme for measuring the capital adequacy of the depository institutions they supervise. Under the regulations (commonly referred to as the “prompt corrective action” rules), an institution



3


Table of Contents

Part I

would be placed in one of the following five capital categories when these ratios fall within the prescribed ranges:

                         
    Ratios
    Total     Tier 1     Tier 1  
    capital     capital     leverage  
 
    At Least
     
Well-capitalized
    10 %     6 %     5 %
Adequately capitalized
    8 %     4 %     4 %(a)
 
    Less Than
     
Undercapitalized
    8 %     4 %     4 %(a)
Significantly undercapitalized
    6 %     3 %     3 %
 
Critically undercapitalized   Tangible equity to total assets of 2% or less
 
(a) May be 3% in some cases.

An institution may be treated as being in a capital category lower than that indicated based on other supervisory criteria.

Supervisory actions by the appropriate federal banking regulator under the “prompt corrective action” rules generally will depend upon an institution’s classification within the five capital categories. The regulations apply only to banks and not to bank holding companies such as JPMorgan Chase; however, subject to limitations that may be imposed pursuant to GLBA, as described below, the Federal Reserve Board is authorized to take appropriate action at the holding company level based on the undercapitalized status of the holding company’s subsidiary banking institutions. In certain instances relating to an undercapitalized banking institution, the bank holding company would be required to guarantee the performance of the undercapitalized subsidiary and may be liable for civil money damages for failure to fulfill its commitments on that guarantee.

As of December 31, 2003, each of JPMorgan Chase’s banking subsidiaries was “well-capitalized.”

FDIC Insurance Assessments: FDICIA also requires the FDIC to establish a risk-based assessment system for FDIC deposit insurance. Under the FDIC’s risk-based insurance premium assessment system, each depository institution is assigned to one of nine risk classifications based upon certain capital and supervisory measures and, depending upon its classification, is assessed insurance premiums on its deposits.

Depository institutions insured by the Bank Insurance Fund are required to pay premiums ranging from 0 basis points to 27 basis points of U.S. deposits. Each of JPMorgan Chase’s banks, including JPMorgan Chase Bank and Chase USA, currently qualifies for the 0 basis point assessment. Legislation has been introduced in Congress that, if enacted, would give the FDIC discretion to impose deposit insurance premiums on all depository institutions. In addition, if the ratio of insured deposits to money in the Bank Insurance Fund drops below specified levels, the FDIC would be required to impose premiums on all banks insured by the Bank Insurance Fund. All depository institutions must also pay an annual assessment so that the Financing Corporation (“FICO”) may pay interest on bonds it issued in connection with the resolution of savings association insolvencies occurring prior to 1991. The FICO assessment for the first quarter of 2004 is 1.54 basis points of U.S. deposits. The rate schedules are subject to future adjustments by the FDIC. In addition, the FDIC has authority to impose special

assessments from time to time, subject to certain limitations specified in the Deposit Insurance Funds Act.

Powers of the FDIC upon insolvency of an insured depository institution: An FDIC-insured depository institution can be held liable for any loss incurred or expected to be incurred by the FDIC in connection with another FDIC-insured institution under common control with such institution being in “default” or “in danger of default” (commonly referred to as “cross-guarantee” liability). “Default” is generally defined as the appointment of a conservator or receiver and “in danger of default” is defined as certain conditions indicating that a default is likely to occur absent regulatory assistance. An FDIC cross-guarantee claim against a depository institution is generally superior in right of payment to claims of the holding company and its affiliates against such depository institution.

If the FDIC is appointed the conservator or receiver of an insured depository institution, upon its insolvency or in certain other events, the FDIC has the power: (1) to transfer any of the depository institution’s assets and liabilities to a new obligor without the approval of the depository institution’s creditors; (2) to enforce the terms of the depository institution’s contracts pursuant to their terms; or (3) to repudiate or disaffirm any contract or lease to which the depository institution is a party, the performance of which is determined by the FDIC to be burdensome and the disaffirmance or repudiation of which is determined by the FDIC to promote the orderly administration of the depository institution. The above provisions would be applicable to obligations and liabilities of those of JPMorgan Chase’s subsidiaries that are insured depository institutions, such as JPMorgan Chase Bank and Chase USA, including, without limitation, obligations under senior or subordinated debt issued by those banks to investors (referred to below as “public noteholders”) in the public markets.

Under federal law, the claims of a receiver of an insured depository institution for administrative expenses and the claims of holders of U.S. deposit liabilities (including the FDIC, as subrogee of the depositors) have priority over the claims of other unsecured creditors of the institution, including public noteholders, in the event of the liquidation or other resolution of the institution. As a result, whether or not the FDIC ever sought to repudiate any obligations held by public noteholders of any subsidiary of the Firm that is an insured depository institution, such as JPMorgan Chase Bank or Chase USA, the public noteholders would be treated differently from, and could receive, if anything, substantially less than, the depositors of the depository institution.

The USA PATRIOT Act: On October 26, 2001, President Bush signed into law The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (the “Act”).

The Act substantially broadens existing anti-money laundering legislation and the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the United States, imposes new compliance and due diligence obligations, creates new crimes and penalties, compels the production of documents located both inside and outside the United States, including those of non-U.S. institutions that have a correspondent relationship in the United States, and clarifies the safe harbor from civil liability to customers. The Act mandates the U.S. Treasury Department to issue a number of regulations to further clarify the Act’s requirements or provide more specific guidance on their application.



4


Table of Contents

The Act requires all “financial institutions,” as defined, to establish certain anti-money laundering compliance and due diligence programs. The Act requires financial institutions that maintain correspondent accounts for non-U.S. institutions or persons or that are involved in private banking for “non-United States persons” or their representatives, to establish “appropriate, specific and, where necessary, enhanced due diligence policies, procedures, and controls that are reasonably designed to detect and report instances of money laundering through those accounts.” JPMorgan Chase believes its programs satisfy the requirements of the Act.

Other supervision and regulation: Under current Federal Reserve Board policy, JPMorgan Chase is expected to act as a source of financial strength to its bank subsidiaries and to commit resources to support the bank subsidiaries in circumstances where it might not do so absent such policy. However, because GLBA provides for functional regulation of financial holding company activities by various regulators, GLBA prohibits the Federal Reserve Board from requiring payment by a holding company or subsidiary to a depository institution if the functional regulator of the payor objects to such payment. In such a case, the Federal Reserve Board could instead require the divestiture of the depository institution and impose operating restrictions pending the divestiture.

Any loans by a bank holding company to any of its subsidiary banks are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of the subsidiary banks. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank at a certain level will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to a priority of payment.

The bank subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase are subject to certain restrictions imposed by federal law on extensions of credit to, and certain other transactions with, the Firm and certain other affiliates and on investments in stock or securities of JPMorgan Chase and those affiliates. These restrictions prevent JPMorgan Chase and other affiliates from borrowing from a bank subsidiary unless the loans are secured in specified amounts.

The Firm’s bank and certain of its nonbank subsidiaries are subject to direct supervision and regulation by various other federal and state authorities (many of which will be considered “functional regulators” under GLBA). JPMorgan Chase Bank as a New York State-chartered bank and a state member bank, is subject to supervision and regulation by the New York State Banking Department as well as by the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC. JPMorgan Chase’s national bank subsidiaries, such as Chase USA, are subject to substantially similar supervision and regulation by the Comptroller of the Currency. Supervision and regulation by each of the foregoing regulatory agencies generally include comprehensive annual reviews of all major aspects of the relevant bank’s business and condition, as well as the imposition of periodic reporting requirements and limitations on investments and other powers. The Firm also conducts securities underwriting, dealing and brokerage activities through JPMSI and other broker-dealer subsidiaries, all of which are subject to the regulations of the SEC and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. JPMSI is a member of the New York Stock Exchange. The operations of JPMorgan Chase’s mutual funds also are subject to regulation by the SEC. The types of activities in which the non-U.S.

branches of JPMorgan Chase Bank and the international subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase may engage are subject to various restrictions imposed by the Federal Reserve Board. Those non-U.S. branches and international subsidiaries also are subject to the laws and regulatory authorities of the countries in which they operate.

The activities of JPMorgan Chase Bank and Chase USA as consumer lenders also are subject to regulation under various federal laws, including the Truth-in-Lending, the Equal Credit Opportunity, the Fair Credit Reporting, the Fair Debt Collection Practice and the Electronic Funds Transfer Acts, as well as various state laws. These statutes impose requirements on the making, enforcement and collection of consumer loans and on the types of disclosures that need to be made in connection with such loans.

In addition, under the requirements imposed by GLBA, JPMorgan Chase and its subsidiaries are required periodically to disclose to their retail customers the Firm’s policies and practices with respect to (1) the sharing of non-public customer information with JPMorgan Chase affiliates and others and (2) the confidentiality and security of that information. Under GLBA, retail customers also must be given the opportunity to “opt out” of information sharing arrangements with non-affiliates, subject to certain exceptions set forth in GLBA.

Important factors that may affect future results

From time to time, the Firm has made and will make forward-looking statements. These statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. Forward-looking statements often use words such as “anticipate,” “target,” “expect,” “estimate,” “intend,” “plan,” “goal,” “believe” or other words of similar meaning. Forward-looking statements give JPMorgan Chase’s current expectations or forecasts of future events, circumstances or results. JPMorgan Chase’s disclosures in this report, including in the MD&A section, contain forward-looking statements. The Firm also may make forward-looking statements in its other documents filed with the SEC and in other written materials. In addition, the Firm’s senior management may make forward-looking statements orally to analysts, investors, representatives of the media and others.

Any forward-looking statements made by or on behalf of the Firm speak only as of the date they are made. JPMorgan Chase does not undertake to update forward-looking statements to reflect the impact of circumstances or events that arise after the date the forward-looking statement was made. The reader should, however, consult any further disclosures of a forward-looking nature JPMorgan Chase may make in its Annual Reports on Form 10-K, its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and its Current Reports on Form 8-K.

All forward-looking statements, by their nature, are subject to risks and uncertainties. The Firm’s actual future results may differ materially from those set forth in JPMorgan Chase’s forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause JPMorgan Chase’s future financial performance to vary from that described in its forward-looking statements include the credit, market, operational, liquidity, interest rate and other risks discussed in the MD&A section of this report and in other periodic reports filed with the SEC. In addition, the following discussion sets forth cer-



5


Table of Contents

Part I

tain risks and uncertainties that the Firm believes could cause its actual future results to differ materially from expected results. However, other factors besides those listed below or discussed in JPMorgan Chase’s reports to the SEC also could adversely affect the Firm’s results, and the reader should not consider any such list of factors to be a complete set of all potential risks or uncertainties. This discussion is provided as permitted by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Merger of JPMorgan Chase and Bank One. There are significant risks and uncertainties associated with the Firm’s proposed merger with Bank One. For example, the merger may not be consummated, or may not be consummated by mid-2004 as currently anticipated, as a result of the inability to obtain governmental approvals of the merger on the proposed terms or the failure of either company to receive shareholder approval for the merger. In addition, JPMorgan Chase may fail to realize the growth opportunities and cost savings anticipated to be derived from the merger. If the Firm is not able to combine successfully the businesses of JPMorgan Chase and Bank One, the anticipated benefits from the merger may not be realized fully or at all or may take longer to realize than expected. For example, it is possible that the integration process could result in the loss of key employees, or that the disruption of ongoing business from the merger could adversely affect JPMorgan Chase’s ability to maintain relationships with clients or suppliers. Finally, upon consummation of the merger, management’s present expectations of the future results of the merger may be modified or revised.

Business conditions and general economy. The profitability of JPMorgan Chase’s businesses could be adversely affected by a worsening of general economic conditions in the United States or abroad. The difficult global market and economic conditions that existed in 2002 improved markedly in 2003. While the outlook for the Firm for 2004 is cautiously optimistic, based upon the gradual improvement of the overall economic environment, there can be no assurances that the economic recovery that began in 2003 will continue throughout 2004.

Factors such as the liquidity of the global financial markets, the level and volatility of equity prices and interest rates, investor sentiment, inflation, and the availability and cost of credit could significantly affect the activity level of clients with respect to size, number and timing of transactions affected by the Firm’s investment banking business, including its underwriting and advisory businesses, and also may affect the realization of cash returns from JPMorgan Chase’s private equity business. A recurrence of a market downturn would likely lead to a decline in the volume of transactions that JPMorgan Chase executes for its customers and, therefore, lead to a decline in the revenues it receives from trading commissions and spreads. Higher interest rates or continued weakness in the market also could affect the willingness of financial investors to participate in loan syndications or underwritings managed by JPMorgan Chase. The Firm generally maintains large trading portfolios in the fixed income, currency, commodity and equity markets and has significant investment positions, including merchant banking investments at JPMorgan Partners. The revenues derived from mark-to-market values of JPMorgan Chase’s business are affected by many factors, including JPMorgan Chase’s credit standing; its success in proprietary positioning; volatility in interest rates and in equity and debt markets; and the economic,

political and business factors described below. JPMorgan Chase anticipates that these revenues will fluctuate over time.

The fees JPMorgan Chase earns for managing assets are also dependent upon general economic conditions. For example, a higher level of U.S. or non-U.S. interest rates or a downturn in trading markets could affect the valuations of the mutual funds managed by the Firm, which, in turn could affect the Firm’s revenues. Moreover, even in the absence of a market downturn, below-market performance by JPMorgan Chase’s mutual funds could result in outflows of assets under management and, therefore, reduce the fees the Firm receives.

The credit quality of JPMorgan Chase’s on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet assets may be affected by business conditions. In a poor economic environment there is a greater likelihood that more of the Firm’s customers or counterparties could become delinquent on their loans or other obligations to JPMorgan Chase, which, in turn, could result in a higher level of charge-offs and a higher level of provision for credit losses, all of which would adversely affect the Firm’s earnings.

The Firm’s consumer businesses are particularly affected by domestic economic conditions, including U.S. interest rates, the rate of unemployment, the level of consumer confidence, changes in consumer spending, and the number of personal bankruptcies, as these factors will affect the level of consumer loans and credit quality.

Competition. JPMorgan Chase operates in a highly competitive environment and expects various factors to cause competitive conditions to continue to intensify. The Firm expects competition to intensify as continued merger activity in the financial services industry produces larger, better-capitalized companies that are capable of offering a wider array of financial products and services, and at more competitive prices. In addition, technological advances and the growth of e-commerce have made it possible for non-depository institutions to offer products and services that traditionally were banking products and for financial institutions to compete with technology companies in providing electronic and Internet-based financial solutions.

Non-U.S. operations; trading in non-U.S. securities. The Firm does business throughout the world, including in developing regions of the world commonly known as emerging markets. JPMorgan Chase’s businesses and revenues derived from non-U.S. operations are subject to risk of loss from unfavorable political and diplomatic developments, currency fluctuations, social instability, changes in governmental policies or policies of central banks, expropriation, nationalization, confiscation of assets and changes in legislation relating to non-U.S. ownership. JPMorgan Chase also invests in the securities of corporations located in non-U.S. jurisdictions, including emerging markets. Revenues from the trading of non-U.S. securities also may be subject to negative fluctuations as a result of the above factors. The impact of these fluctuations could be accentuated because, generally, non-U.S. trading markets, particularly in emerging market countries, are smaller, less liquid and more volatile than U.S. trading markets.

Operational risk. JPMorgan Chase, like all large corporations, is exposed to many types of operational risk, including the risk of fraud by employees or outsiders, unauthorized transactions by employees or operational errors, including clerical or record-keeping errors or errors resulting from faulty or disabled computer



6


Table of Contents

or telecommunications systems. Given the high volume of transactions at JPMorgan Chase, certain errors may be repeated or compounded before they are discovered and successfully rectified. In addition, the Firm’s necessary dependence upon automated systems to record and process its transaction volume may further increase the risk that technical system flaws or employee tampering or manipulation of those systems will result in losses that are difficult to detect. The Firm may also be subject to disruptions of its operating systems, arising from events that are wholly or partially beyond its control (including, for example, computer viruses or electrical or telecommunications outages), which may give rise to losses in service to customers and to loss or liability to the Firm. The Firm is further exposed to the risk that its external vendors may be unable to fulfill their contractual obligation to the Firm (or will be subject to the same risk of fraud or operational errors by their respective employees as is the Firm), and to the risk that its (or its vendors’) business continuity and data security systems prove not to be sufficiently adequate. The Firm also faces the risk that the design of its controls and procedures prove inadequate, or are circumvented, thereby causing delays in detection or errors in information. Although JPMorgan Chase maintains a system of controls designed to keep operational risk at appropriate levels, there can be no assurance that JPMorgan Chase will not suffer losses from operational risks in the future that may be material in amount.

Government monetary policies and economic controls. JPMorgan Chase’s businesses and earnings are affected by general economic conditions, both domestic and international. JPMorgan Chase’s businesses and earnings also are affected by the fiscal or other policies that are adopted by various regulatory authorities of the United States, non-U.S. governments and international agencies. For example, policies and regulations of the Federal Reserve Board influence, directly and indirectly, the rate of interest paid by commercial banks on their interest-bearing deposits and also may impact the value of financial instruments held by the Firm. These actions of the Federal Reserve Board also determine to a significant degree the cost to JPMorgan Chase of funds for lending and investing. The nature and impact of future changes in economic and market conditions and fiscal policies are not predictable and are beyond JPMorgan Chase’s control. In addition, these policies and conditions can impact the Firm’s customers and counterparties, both in the U.S. and abroad, which may increase the risk that such customers or counterparties default on their obligations to JPMorgan Chase.

Reputational and legal risk. The Firm’s ability to attract and retain customers and employees could be adversely affected to the extent its reputation is damaged. The failure of the Firm to deal, or to appear to fail to deal, with various issues that could give rise to reputational risk could cause harm to the Firm and its business prospects. These issues include, but are not limited to, appropriately dealing with potential conflicts of interest, legal and regulatory requirements, ethical issues, money-laundering, privacy, record-keeping, sales and trading practices and the proper identification of the legal, reputational, credit, liquidity and market risks inherent in its products. Failure to address appropriately these issues could also give rise to additional legal risk to the Firm, which could, in turn, increase the size and number of claims and damages asserted against the Firm or subject the Firm to enforcement actions, fines and penalties.

Credit, market, liquidity and private equity risk. JPMorgan Chase’s revenues also are dependent upon the extent to which management can successfully achieve its business strategies within a disciplined risk environment. JPMorgan Chase’s ability to grow its businesses is affected by pricing and competitive pressures, as well as by the costs associated with the introduction of new products and services and the expansion and development of new distribution channels. The ability of management to utilize the “Shareholder Value Added” methodology to evaluate investment opportunities and the ability to maintain expense discipline will be important factors in determining the extent to which the Firm achieves its financial targets. In addition, to the extent any of the instruments and strategies JPMorgan Chase uses to hedge or otherwise manage its exposure to market, credit and private equity risk are not effective, the Firm may not be able to mitigate effectively its risk exposures in particular market environments or against particular types of risk. JPMorgan Chase’s balance sheet growth will be dependent upon the economic conditions described above, as well as on its determination to securitize, sell, purchase or syndicate particular loans or loan portfolios. JPMorgan Chase’s trading revenues and interest rate risk are dependent upon its ability to identify properly, and mark to market, changes in the value of its financial instruments caused by changes in market prices or rates. The Firms’s earnings will also be dependent upon how effectively its critical accounting estimates, including those used in its private equity valuations, prove accurate and upon how effectively it determines and assesses the cost of credit and manages its risk concentrations. To the extent its assessments of migrations in credit quality and of risk concentrations, or its assumptions or estimates used in establishing its valuation models for the fair value of its assets and liabilities or for its loan loss reserves, prove inaccurate or not predictive of actual results, the Firm could suffer higher-than-anticipated losses. The successful management of credit, market, operational and private equity risk is an important consideration in managing the Firm’s liquidity risk, as evaluation by rating agencies of the management of these risks affects their determinations as to the Firm’s credit ratings and, therefore, its cost of funds.

Non-U.S. operations

For geographic distributions of total revenue, total expense, income before income tax expense and net income, see Note 32 on page 124. For a discussion of non-U.S. loans, see Note 11 on page 99 and the sections entitled “Country exposure” in the MD&A on page 58 and “Cross-border outstandings” on page 139.

Item 2: Properties

The headquarters of JPMorgan Chase is located in New York City at 270 Park Avenue, which is a 50-story bank and office building owned by JPMorgan Chase. This location contains approximately 1.3 million square feet of space. In addition, JPMorgan Chase leases approximately 2.2 million square feet of office space in two midtown Manhattan office buildings, 277 Park Avenue and 245 Park Avenue, which, together with 270 Park, comprise the JPMorgan Chase “midtown campus.” The 277 Park Avenue building is fully occupied. The lower floors of 245 Park Avenue are occupied by JPMorgan Chase, but approximately 200,000 square feet on the upper floors are presently being marketed. JPMorgan Chase also owns and occupies a large portion of a 60-



7


Table of Contents

Part I

story building at One Chase Manhattan Plaza in New York City. This location has approximately 2 million square feet of commercial office and retail space, of which approximately 700,000 square feet is leased to outside tenants. JPMorgan Chase also owns and occupies a 22-story building at 4 New York Plaza, New York City. This location has 900,000 square feet of commercial office and retail space, none of which is leased to outside tenants. JPMorgan Chase is also a tenant in a number of other office buildings in Manhattan.

In the third quarter of 2003, JPMorgan Chase sold the two adjacent buildings it owned at 23 Wall Street and 15 Broad Street in New York City to a private developer. The two buildings contain approximately 1 million square feet of commercial office and retail space.

JPMorgan Chase built and fully occupies a two-building complex known as Chase MetroTech Center in downtown Brooklyn, New York that was completed in 1992. This facility contains approximately 1.75 million square feet and houses operations and product support functions. JPMorgan Chase currently leases two office buildings at The Newport Office Center in Jersey City, New Jersey, comprising approximately 1.1 million square feet of office and retail space. JPMorgan Chase and its subsidiaries also own and occupy administrative and operational facilities in Hicksville, New York; Tampa, Florida; Tempe, Arizona; Newark, Delaware; and in Houston, Arlington and El Paso, Texas.

In the United Kingdom, JPMorgan Chase occupies, in the aggregate, approximately 2.6 million square feet of space. The most significant components of leased space in London are 370,000 square feet at 125 London Wall, 325,000 square feet at Aldermanbury, and a 450,000 square-foot office complex at 60 Victoria Embankment in London. JPMorgan Chase owns and occupies a 350,000 square-foot operations center in Bournemouth.

In addition to the above, JPMorgan Chase and its subsidiaries occupy retail branches, offices and other administrative and operational facilities throughout the world under various types of ownership and leasehold agreements. The properties occupied by JPMorgan Chase are used across all of JPMorgan Chase’s business segments and for corporate purposes.

JPMorgan Chase incurred charges of $270 million in 2003 and $120 million in 2002 to cover the costs of disposing of excess space. JPMorgan Chase continues to evaluate its current and projected space requirements, particularly in light of its proposed merger with Bank One. There is no assurance that the Firm will be able to dispose of its excess premises or that it will not incur additional charges in connection with such dispositions.

Item 3: Legal proceedings

Enron litigation. JPMorgan Chase is involved in a number of lawsuits and investigations arising out of its banking relationships with Enron Corp. and its subsidiaries (“Enron”). Pending in London is a lawsuit by the Firm against Westdeutsche Landes-bank Girozentrale (“WLB”) seeking to compel payment of $165 million under an Enron-related letter of credit issued by WLB.

Actions involving Enron have been initiated by parties against JPMorgan Chase, its directors and certain of its officers. These lawsuits include a series of purported class actions brought on behalf of shareholders of Enron, including the lead action captioned Newby v. Enron Corp., and a series of purported class actions brought on behalf of Enron employees who participated in various employee stock ownership plans, including the lead action captioned Tittle v. Enron Corp. The consolidated complaint filed in Newby names as defendants, among others, JPMorgan Chase, several other investment banking firms, a number of law firms, Enron’s former accountants and affiliated entities and individuals and other individual defendants, including present and former officers and directors of Enron, and it purports to allege claims against JPMorgan Chase and the other defendants under federal and state securities laws. The Tittle complaint named as defendants, among others, JPMorgan Chase, several other investment banking firms, a law firm, Enron’s former accountants and affiliated entities and individuals and other individual defendants, including present and former officers and directors of Enron and purports to allege claims against JPMorgan Chase and certain other defendants under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and state common law. On December 20, 2002, the Court denied the motion of JPMorgan Chase and other defendants to dismiss the Newby action. On September 30, 2003, Judge Harmon dismissed all claims against JPMorgan Chase in Tittle.

Additional actions include a purported consolidated class action lawsuit by JPMorgan Chase stockholders alleging that the Firm issued false and misleading press releases and other public documents relating to Enron in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; a putative class action on behalf of JPMorgan Chase employees who participated in the Firm’s employee stock ownership plans alleging claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and negligence by JPMorgan Chase, its directors and named officers; shareholder derivative actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and alleged failures to exercise due care and diligence by the Firm’s directors and named officers in the management of JPMorgan Chase; individual and putative class actions in various courts by Enron investors, creditors and holders of participating interests related to syndicated credit facilities; third-party actions brought by defendants in Enron-related cases, alleging federal and state law claims against JPMorgan Chase and many other defendants; investigations by governmental agencies with which the Firm is cooperating; and an adversary proceeding brought by Enron in bankruptcy court seeking damages for alleged aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty by Enron insiders, return of alleged fraudulent conveyances and preferences, and equitable subordination of JPMorgan Chase’s claims in the Enron bankruptcy. On July 28, 2003, an examiner appointed in the Enron bankruptcy case filed with the bankruptcy court the third in a series of reports. In this report, the Enron examiner opined that the Enron bankruptcy estate has colorable claims against (among others) JPMorgan Chase for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties by certain of Enron’s officers with respect to certain transactions involving Enron, for equitable subordination and for avoidance of allegedly preferential payments made to the Firm. The report acknowledges that any such claims may be subject to certain defenses which could be asserted by JPMorgan Chase.



8


Table of Contents

By joint order of the district court handling Newby, Tittle and a number of other Enron-related cases and the bankruptcy court handling Enron’s bankruptcy case, a mediation among various investors and creditor plaintiffs, the Enron bankruptcy estate and a number of financial institution defendants, including JPMorgan Chase, has been initiated before The Honorable William C. Conner, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York.

On July 28, 2003, the Firm announced that it had reached agreements with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (“FRB”), the New York State Banking Department (“NYSBD”), and the New York County District Attorney’s Office (“NYDA”) resolving matters relating to JPMorgan Chase’s involvement with certain transactions involving Enron. In connection with the SEC settlement, the SEC alleged that JPMorgan Chase aided and abetted a securities fraud by Enron. JPMorgan Chase has neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s allegations but has consented to relief sought by the SEC, including an order enjoining the Firm from future violations of the antifraud provisions of the securities laws and requiring the Firm to pay a total of $135 million, consisting of $65 million of disgorgement of revenues, $5 million of interest and $65 million of penalties. The agreement with the NYDA provides that neither JPMorgan Chase nor any of its officers or employees will be prosecuted by the NYDA and that the Firm will pay a total of $27.5 million, consisting of $25 million in penalties and $2.5 million in reimbursement of expenses of the NYDA. JPMorgan Chase has also committed to take certain measures to improve controls with respect to structured finance transactions. The agreement with the FRB and NYSBD, a formal written agreement, requires JPMorgan Chase to adopt programs acceptable to the FRB and the NYSBD for enhancing the Firm’s management of credit risk and legal and reputational risk, particularly in relation to its participation in structured finance transactions.

WorldCom litigation. J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. (“JPMSI”) and JPMorgan Chase have been named as defendants in more than 50 actions that were filed in either United States District Courts or state courts in more than 20 states and in one arbitral panel beginning in July 2002 arising out of alleged accounting irregularities in the books and records of WorldCom Inc. Plaintiffs in these actions are individual and institutional investors, including state pension funds, who purchased debt securities issued by WorldCom pursuant to public offerings in 1997, 1998, 2000 and 2001. JPMSI acted as an underwriter of the 1998, 2000 and 2001 offerings and was an initial purchaser in the December 2000 private bond offering. In addition to JPMSI, JPMorgan Chase and, in two actions, J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd. (“JPMSL”) in its capacity as one of the underwriters of the international tranche of the 2001 offering, the defendants in various of the actions include other underwriters, certain executives of WorldCom and WorldCom’s auditors. In the actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants either knew or were reckless or negligent in not knowing that the securities were sold to plaintiffs on the basis of misrepresentations and omissions of material facts concerning the financial condition of WorldCom. The complaints against JPMorgan Chase, JPMSI and JPMSL assert claims under federal and state securities laws, other state statutes and under common law theories of fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

Commercial Financial Services litigation. JPMSI (formerly known as Chase Securities Inc.) has been named as a defendant in several actions that were filed in or transferred to the United States District and Bankruptcy Courts for the Northern District of Oklahoma or filed in Oklahoma state court beginning in October 1999, arising out of the failure of Commercial Financial Services, Inc. (“CFSI”). Plaintiffs in these actions are institutional investors who purchased approximately $2.0 billion in original face amount of asset-backed securities issued by CFSI. The securities were backed by charged-off credit card receivables. In addition to JPMSI, the defendants in various of the actions are the founders and key executives of CFSI, as well as its auditors and outside counsel. JPMSI is alleged to have been the investment bankers to CFSI and to have acted as an initial purchaser and as placement agent in connection with the issuance of certain of the securities. Plaintiffs allege that defendants either knew or were reckless or negligent in not knowing that the securities were sold to plaintiffs on the basis of misleading misrepresentations and omissions of material facts. The complaints against JPMSI assert claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, under the Oklahoma Securities Act and under common law theories of fraud and negligent misrepresentation. In the actions against JPMSI, damages in the amount of approximately $1.6 billion, allegedly suffered as a result of defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions, plus punitive damages and interest, are being claimed. CFSI has commenced an action against JPMSI in Oklahoma state court and has asserted claims against JPMSI for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. CFSI alleges that JPMSI failed to detect and prevent its insolvency. CFSI seeks unspecified damages. CFSI has also commenced, in its bankruptcy case, an adversary proceeding against JPMSI and its credit card affiliate, Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., alleging that certain payments, aggregating $78.4 million, made in connection with CFSI’s purchase or securitization of charged-off credit card receivables were constructive fraudulent conveyances, and seeks to recover such payments and interest. A trial date on the adversary proceeding has been set for November 1, 2004.

IPO allocation litigation. Beginning in May 2001, JPMorgan Chase and certain of its securities subsidiaries have been named, along with numerous other firms in the securities industry, as defendants in a large number of putative class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. These suits purport to challenge alleged improprieties in the allocation of stock in various public offerings, including some offerings for which a JPMorgan Chase entity served as an underwriter. The suits allege violations of securities and antitrust laws arising from alleged material misstatements and omissions in registration statements and prospectuses for the initial public offerings (“IPOs”) and alleged market manipulation with respect to aftermarket transactions in the offered securities. The securities claims allege, among other things, misrepresentations and market manipulation of the aftermarket trading for these offerings by tying allocations of shares in IPOs to undisclosed excessive commissions paid to JPMorgan Chase and to required aftermarket purchase transactions by customers who received allocations of shares in the respective IPOs, as well as allegations of misleading analyst reports. The antitrust claims allege an illegal conspiracy to require customers, in exchange for IPO allocations, to pay undisclosed and excessive commissions and to make aftermarket



9


Table of Contents

Part I

purchases of the IPO securities at a price higher than the offering price as a precondition to receiving allocations. On February 13, 2003, the Court denied the motions of JPMorgan Chase and others to dismiss the securities complaints. On November 3, 2003, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the antitrust claims relating to the IPO allocation practices. A separate antitrust claim alleging that JPMSI and the other underwriters conspired to fix their underwriting fees is in discovery.

JPMorgan Chase has also received various subpoenas and informal requests from governmental and other agencies seeking information relating to IPO allocation practices. On February 20, 2003, JPMSI reached a settlement with the National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”) pursuant to which the NASD censured JPMSI and fined it $6 million for activities it found to constitute unlawful profit sharing by Hambrecht & Quist Group in the period immediately prior to and following its acquisition in 2000. In agreeing to the resolution of the charges, JPMSI neither admitted nor denied the NASD’s contentions. In late September JPMSI and the SEC agreed to resolve matters relating to the SEC’s investigation of JPMSI’s IPO allocation practices during 1999 and 2000. The SEC alleged that JPMSI violated Rule 101 of SEC Regulation M in certain “hot” IPOs by attempting to induce certain customers to place aftermarket orders for IPO shares before the IPO was completed. Also, in the case of one IPO, the SEC alleged that JPMSI violated “just and equitable principles of trade” under NASD Conduct Rule 2110 by persuading at least one customer to accept an allocation of shares in a “cold” IPO in exchange for a promise of an allocation of shares in an upcoming IPO that was expected to be oversubscribed. JPMSI neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s allegations, but consented to a judgment (entered October 1, 2003) enjoining JPMSI from future violations of Regulation M and NASD Conduct Rule 2110 and requiring JPMSI to pay a civil penalty of $25 million.

Research analysts’ conflicts. On December 20, 2002, the Firm reached a settlement agreement in principle with the SEC, the NASD, the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”), the New York State Attorney General’s Office and the North American Securities Administrators Association, on behalf of state securities regulators, to resolve their investigations of JPMorgan Chase relating to research analyst independence. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, JPMorgan Chase, without admitting or denying the allegations concerning alleged conflicts, agreed, among other things: (i) to pay $50 million for retrospective relief, (ii) to adopt internal structural and operational reforms that will further augment the steps it has already taken to ensure the integrity of JPMorgan Chase analyst research, (iii) to contribute $25 million spread over five years to provide independent third-party research to clients and (iv) to contribute $5 million towards investor education. Mutually satisfactory settlement documents have been negotiated and approved by the SEC, the NYSE, the NASD and the Texas State Securities Board. Mutually satisfactory settlement documents have been negotiated and approved by the regulatory authorities in all but a few states, and settlement documents are in the process of being negotiated with the remaining states. On October 31, 2003, the Court entered final judgment pursuant to the settlement with the SEC.

JPMSI has been named as a co-defendant with nine other broker-dealers in two actions involving allegations similar to those at issue in the regulatory investigations: a putative class action filed

in federal court in Colorado seeking an unspecified amount of money damages for alleged violations of federal securities laws, and an action filed in West Virginia state court by West Virginia’s Attorney General seeking recovery from the defendants in the aggregate of $5,000 for each of what are alleged to be hundreds of thousands of violations of the state’s consumer protection statute. On August 8, 2003, the plaintiffs in the Colorado action dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Motions to dismiss the West Virginia action and to disqualify private counsel retained by the Attorney General to prosecute that action are pending.

JPMSI was served by the SEC, NASD and NYSE on or about May 30, 2003, with subpoenas or document requests seeking information regarding certain present and former officers and employees in connection with a follow-up to the regulatory investigations, this time focusing on whether particular individuals properly performed supervisory functions regarding domestic equity research. The Firm is cooperating with the investigations, which continue.

Litigation reserve and other. During the fourth quarter of 2002, the Firm established a reserve of $900 million related to costs anticipated to be incurred in connection with the various private litigation and regulatory inquiries involving Enron and the other material legal actions, proceedings and investigations discussed above. In the second quarter of 2003, the Firm added $100 million to the reserve related to Enron. Of the $1 billion, $700 million was allocated to the various cases, proceedings and investigations associated with Enron. The balance of $300 million was allocated to the various litigations, proceedings and investigations involving the Firm’s debt and equity underwriting activities and equity research practices. The reserve may be revised in the future. As of December 31, 2003, the Enron-related litigation reserve was $524 million, and the balance of the $300 million set aside at December 31, 2002 was $221 million.

In addition to the various cases, proceedings and investigations for which the reserve has been established, JPMorgan Chase and its subsidiaries are named as defendants in a number of other legal actions and governmental proceedings arising in connection with their respective businesses. Additional actions, investigations or proceedings may be brought from time to time in the future. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of legal matters, particularly where the claimants seek very large or indeterminate damages or where the cases present novel legal theories or involve a large number of parties, the Firm cannot state with confidence what the eventual outcome of the pending matters (including the pending matters as to which the reserve has been established) will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters will be or what the eventual loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter may be. Subject to the foregoing caveat, JPMorgan Chase anticipates, based upon its current knowledge, after consultation with counsel and after taking into account its litigation reserves, that the outcome of the legal actions, proceedings and investigations currently pending against it should not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Firm, although the outcome of a particular proceeding or the imposition of a particular fine or penalty may be material to JPMorgan Chase’s operating results for a particular period, depending upon, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability and the level of JPMorgan Chase’s income for that period.



10


Table of Contents

Item 4: Submission of matters to a vote of security holders

None.

Executive officers of the registrant

             
Name   Age   Positions and offices held with JPMorgan Chase
 
  (at December 31, 2003)    
 
           
William B. Harrison, Jr.
    60     Chairman and Chief Executive Officer since November 2001, prior to which he was President and Chief Executive Officer from December 2000. He was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer from January through December 2000 and President and Chief Executive Officer from June through December 1999, prior to which he had been Vice Chairman of the Board.
 
           
David A. Coulter
    56     Head of the Investment Bank and of Investment Management & Private Banking. He had been head of Chase Financial Services until May 2002. Prior to joining JPMorgan Chase in 2000, he led the West Coast operations of The Beacon Group, prior to which he was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of BankAmerica Corporation and Bank of America NT & SA.
 
           
Dina Dublon
    50     Chief Financial Officer.
 
           
John J. Farrell
    51     Director Human Resources, head of Security since September 2001 and since July 2003 head of Real Estate/Facilities, General Services.
 
           
Donald H. Layton
    53     Head of Chase Financial Services, Treasury & Securities Services and since July 2003 of Technology. He had been co-head of the Investment Bank until May 2002. Prior to 2001, he was responsible for global markets, the international infrastructure and cash management and securities processing services.
 
           
Frederick W. Hill
    53     Director of Corporate Marketing and Communications.
 
           
William H. McDavid
    57     General Counsel.
 
           
John W. Schmidlin
    56     Chairman of Technology Council. He led the Infrastructure Delivery Model Initiative from June 2001 until July 2003. Prior to 2001, he had been Chief Operating Officer of the Private Banking Initiative (Morgan OnLine) of J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated.
 
           
Jeffrey C. Walker
    48     Head of JPMorgan Partners.
 
           
Don M. Wilson III
    55     Chief Risk Officer and Chairman, Risk Management Committee. He had been co-head of Credit & Rates for the Investment Bank from 2001 until July 2003, prior to which he headed the Global Trading Division.

Unless otherwise noted, during the five fiscal years ended December 31, 2003, all of JPMorgan Chase’s above-named executive officers have continuously held senior-level positions with JPMorgan Chase or its predecessor institutions, J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated and The Chase Manhattan Corporation. There are no family relationships among the foregoing executive officers.

11


Table of Contents

Parts II & III

Part II

Item 5: Market for registrant’s common equity and related stockholder matters

The outstanding shares of JPMorgan Chase’s common stock are listed and traded on the New York Stock Exchange, the London Stock Exchange Limited and the Tokyo Stock Exchange. For the quarterly high and low prices of JPMorgan Chase’s common stock on the New York Stock Exchange for the last two years, see the section entitled “Supplementary information — selected quarterly financial data (unaudited)” on page 128. JPMorgan Chase declared quarterly cash dividends on its common stock in the amount of $0.34 per share for each quarter of 2003 and 2002. The common dividend payout ratio based on reported net income was 43% for 2003, 171% for 2002 and 168% for 2001. At January 31, 2004, there were 123,838 holders of record of JPMorgan Chase’s common stock. For information regarding securities authorized for issuance under the Firm’s employee stock-based compensation plans, see Item 12 on page 13.

Item 6: Selected financial data

For five-year selected financial data, see “Five-year summary of financial highlights (unaudited)” on page 129.

Item 7: Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations

Management’s discussion and analysis of the financial condition and results of operations, entitled “Management’s discussion and analysis,” appears on pages 22 through 80. Such information should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated financial statements and Notes thereto, which appear on pages 82 through 127.

Item 7A: Quantitative and qualitative disclosures about market risk

For information related to market risk, see the “Market risk management” section on pages 66 through 72 and Note 28 on page 116.

Item 8: Financial statements and supplementary data

The Consolidated financial statements, together with the Notes thereto and the report of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP dated January 20, 2004 thereon, appear on pages 81 through 127.

Supplementary financial data for each full quarter within the two years ended December 31, 2003 are included on page 128 in the table entitled “Supplementary information — selected quarterly financial data (unaudited).” Also included is a “Glossary of terms’’ on pages 130 and 131.

Item 9: Changes in and disagreements with accountants on accounting and financial disclosure

None.

Item 9A: Controls and procedures

Within the 75-day period prior to the filing of this report, an evaluation was carried out under the supervision and with the participation of the Firm’s management, including its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of its disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-14(c) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). See Exhibits 31.1 and 31.2 for the Certification statements issued by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. Based upon that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that the design and operation of these disclosure controls and procedures were effective. No significant changes were made in the Firm’s internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect these controls subsequent to the date of their evaluation.

Part III

Item 10: Directors and executive officers of JPMorgan Chase

See Item 13 on page 13.

Item 11: Executive compensation

See Item 13 on page 13.



12


Table of Contents

Item 12: Security ownership of certain beneficial owners and management and related stockholder matters



For security ownership of certain beneficial owners and management, see Item 13 below.



The following table details the total number of shares available for issuance under JPMorgan Chase employee stock-based incentive plans (including shares available for issuance to nonemployee directors). The Firm is not authorized to grant stock-based incentive awards to nonemployees other than to nonemployee directors.

                         
    Number of shares to be     Weighted-average     Number of shares remaining  
December 31, 2003   issued upon exercise of     exercise price of     available for future issuance under  
(Shares in thousands)   outstanding options     outstanding options     equity compensation plans  
 
Employee stock-based incentive plans approved by shareholders
    224,658     $ 37.66       184,819 (a)
Employee stock-based incentive plans not approved by shareholders
    187,173       42.07       108,000  
 
Total
    411,831     $ 39.67       292,819  
 
(a)  
Includes 55 million shares of restricted stock/restricted stock units available for grant in lieu of cash.

Item 13: Certain relationships and related transactions

Information related to JPMorgan Chase’s Executive Officers is included on page 11. Pursuant to Instruction G (3) to Form 10-K, the remainder of the information to be provided in Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Form 10-K (other than information pursuant to Rule 402 (i), (k) and (l) of Regulation S-K) is incorporated by reference to JPMorgan Chase’s definitive proxy statement for the 2004 annual meeting of stockholders, which proxy statement will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days of the close of JPMorgan Chase’s 2003 fiscal year.

Item 14: Principal accounting fees and services

See Item 13 above.



13


Table of Contents

Part IV

Item 15: Exhibits, financial statement schedules and reports on form 8-K

     
(A)
  Exhibits, financial statements and financial statement schedules
     
1.
  Financial statements
The Consolidated financial statements, the Notes thereto and the report thereon listed in Item 8 are set forth commencing on page 81.
 
   
2.
  Financial statement schedules
Financial statement schedules are omitted since the required information is either not applicable, not deemed material, or is shown in the respective Consolidated financial statements or in the Notes thereto.
 
   
3.
  Exhibits
 
   
3.1
  Restated Certificate of Incorporation of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (the “Registrant”) (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).
 
   
3.2
  By-laws of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. as amended by the Board of Directors on October 15, 2002 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2002).
 
   
3.3
  Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of January 14, 2004, by and between J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Bank One Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to Form 8-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805), dated January 14, 2004).
 
   
3.4
  Stock Option Agreement, dated as of January 14, 2004, by and between Bank One Corporation (issuer) and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (grantee) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.1 to Form 8-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805), dated January 14, 2004).
 
   
3.5
  Stock Option Agreement, dated as of January 14, 2004, by and between J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (issuer) and Bank One Corporation (grantee) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.2 to Form 8-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805), dated January 14, 2004).
 
   
4.1
  Deposit Agreement, dated as of February 8, 1996, between J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated (succeeded through merger by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.) and Morgan Guaranty
     
  Trust Company of New York (succeeded through merger by JPMorgan Chase Bank), as Depository (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.7 to the Registration Statement on Form 8-A of The Chase Manhattan Corporation (now known as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.) File No. 1-5805), filed December 20, 2000.
 
   
4.2
  Indenture, dated as of December 1, 1989, between Chemical Banking Corporation (now known as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.) and The Chase Manhattan Bank (National Association), as succeeded to by Bankers Trust Company (now known as Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas), as Trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.9 to the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 33-32409) of Chemical Banking Corporation).
 
   
4.3(a)
  Indenture, dated as of April 1, 1987, as amended and restated as of December 15, 1992, between Chemical Banking Corporation (now known as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.) and Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York (now known as JPMorgan Chase Bank), as succeeded to by U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.3(a) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).
 
   
4.3(b)
  Second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of October 8, 1996, between The Chase Manhattan Corporation (now known as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.) and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee, to the Indenture, dated as of April 1, 1987, as amended and restated as of December 15, 1992 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.3(b) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).
 
   
4.3(c)
  Third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of December 29, 2000, between The Chase Manhattan Corporation (now known as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.) and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee, to the Indenture, dated as of April 1, 1987, as amended and restated as of December 15, 1992 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.3(c) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).
 
   
4.4(a)
  Amended and Restated Indenture, dated as of September 1, 1993, between The Chase Manhattan Corporation (as assumed by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.) and Chemical Bank (succeeded through merger by JPMorgan Chase Bank), as Trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.4(a) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).


14


Table of Contents

     
4.4(b)
  First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 29, 1996, among Chemical Banking Corporation (now known as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.), The Chase Manhattan Corporation, Chemical Bank, as resigning Trustee, and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as successor Trustee, to the Amended and Restated Indenture, dated as of September 1, 1993 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.4(b) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).
 
   
4.4(c)
  Second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of October 8, 1996, between The Chase Manhattan Corporation (now known as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.) and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee, to the Amended and Restated Indenture, dated as of September 1, 1993 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.4(c) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).
 
   
4.4(d)
  Third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of December 29, 2000, between The Chase Manhattan Corporation (now known as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.) and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee, to the Amended and Restated Indenture, dated as of September 1, 1993 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.4(d) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).
 
   
4.5(a)
  Indenture dated as of August 15, 1982, between J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated (succeeded through merger by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.) and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.5(a) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).
 
   
4.5(b)
  First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of May 5, 1986, between J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated (succeeded through merger by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.) and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee, to the Indenture, dated as of August 15, 1982 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.5(b) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).
 
   
4.5(c)
  Second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of February 27, 1996, between J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated (succeeded through merger by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.) and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee, to the Indenture, dated as of August 15, 1982 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.5(c) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).
     
4.5(d)
  Third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of January 30, 1997, between J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated (succeeded through merger by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.) and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee, to the Indenture, dated as of August 15, 1982 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.5(d) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).
 
   
4.5(e)
  Fourth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of December 29, 2000, among J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated, The Chase Manhattan Corporation (now known as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.), and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee, to the Indenture, dated as of August 15, 1982 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.5(e) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).
 
   
4.6(a)
  Indenture dated as of December 1, 1986, between J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated (succeeded through merger by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.) and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.6(a) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).
 
   
4.6(b)
  First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of May 12, 1992, between J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated (succeeded through merger by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.) and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee, to the Indenture, dated as of December 1, 1986 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.6(b) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).
 
   
4.6(c)
  Second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of December 29, 2000, among J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated, The Chase Manhattan Corporation (now known as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.), and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee, to the Indenture, dated as of December 1, 1986 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.6(c) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).
 
   
4.7(a)
  Indenture dated as of March 1, 1993, between J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated (succeeded through merger by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.) and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.7(a) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).


15


Table of Contents

Part IV

     
4.7(b)
  First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of December 29, 2000, among J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated, The Chase Manhattan Corporation (now known as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.), and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee, to the Indenture, dated as of March 1, 1993 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.7(b) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).
 
   
4.8
  Indenture dated May 25, 2001, between J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (previously known as Bankers Trust Company), as Trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(a)(1) to the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-52826) of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., File No. 1- 5805).
 
   
4.9(a)
  Junior Subordinated Indenture, dated as of December 1, 1996, between The Chase Manhattan Corporation (now known as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.) and The Bank of New York, as Debenture Trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.24 to the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-19719) of The Chase Manhattan Corporation).
 
   
4.9(b)
  Guarantee Agreement, dated as of January 24, 1997, between The Chase Manhattan Corporation (now known as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.) and The Bank of New York, as Trustee, with respect to the Global Floating Rate Capital Securities, Series B, of Chase Capital II (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.8 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K, dated December 31, 1997, of The Chase Manhattan Corporation, File No. 1-5805).
 
   
4.9(c)
  Amended and Restated Trust Agreement, dated as of January 24, 1997, among The Chase Manhattan Corporation (now known as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.), The Bank of New York, as Property Trustee, The Bank of New York (Delaware), as Delaware Trustee, and the Administrative Trustees named therein, with respect to Chase Capital II (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.9 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K, dated December 31, 1997, of The Chase Manhattan Corporation, File No. 1-5805).
 
   
4.10(a)
  Junior Subordinated Indenture, dated as of November 1, 1996, between J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated (succeeded through merger by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.) and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Debenture Trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(a)(1) to the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-15079) of J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated, File No. 1-5885).
     
4.10(b)
  Guarantee Agreement, dated as of December 4, 1996, between J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated (succeeded through merger by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.) and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Guarantee Trustee, with respect to the Capital Securities of JPM Capital Trust I (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.9(b) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).
 
   
4.10(c)
  Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust, dated as of December 4, 1996, between J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated (succeeded through merger by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.) and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Property Trustee, Wilmington Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee, and the Administrative Trustees named therein, with respect to JPM Capital Trust I (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.9(c) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).
 
   
10.1
  Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors of The Chase Manhattan Corporation and The Chase Manhattan Bank, as amended and restated effective December 1996 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K, dated December 31, 1996, of The Chase Manhattan Corporation, File No. 1-5805).
 
   
10.2
  Post-Retirement Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, as amended and restated as of May 21, 1996 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K, dated December 31, 1996, of The Chase Manhattan Corporation, File No. 1-5805).
 
   
10.3
  Deferred Compensation Program of The Chase Manhattan Corporation and Participating Companies, effective as of January 1, 1996 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).
 
   
10.4
  Amended and Restated 1996 Long-Term Incentive Plan of The Chase Manhattan Corporation (incorporated by reference to Schedule 14A, filed on April 5, 2000, of The Chase Manhattan Corporation, File No. 1-5805).
 
   
10.5
  The Chase Manhattan 1994 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10O to The Chase Manhattan Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1994, File No. 1-5945).


16


Table of Contents

     
10.6
  Amendment to The Chase Manhattan 1994 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10S to The Chase Manhattan Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1995, File No. 1-5945).
 
   
10.7
  Chemical Banking Corporation Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan, as amended and restated as of May 19, 1992 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.7 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K, dated December 31, 1992, of Chemical Banking Corporation, File No. 1-5805).
 
   
10.8
  The Chase Manhattan 1987 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10A to The Chase Manhattan Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1990, File No. 1-5945).
 
   
10.9
  Amendment to The Chase Manhattan 1987/82 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10T to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for the quarter ended September 30, 1995, of The Chase Manhattan Corporation, File No. 1-5945).
 
   
10.10
  Key Executive Performance Plan of The Chase Manhattan Corporation, as amended and restated January 1, 1999 (incorporated by reference to Schedule 14A, filed on March 25, 1999, of The Chase Manhattan Corporation, File No. 1-5805).
 
   
10.11
  Permanent Life Insurance Options Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.11 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K, dated December 31, 1992, of Chemical Banking Corporation, File No. 1-5805).
 
   
10.12
  Excess Retirement Plan of The Chase Manhattan Bank and Participating Companies, restated effective January 1, 1997 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.14 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).
 
   
10.13
  1992 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10a to J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1994, File No. 1-5885).
 
   
10.14
  Director Stock Plan, as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10b to J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1994, File No. 1-5885).
     
10.15
  Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors’ Fees, as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10c to J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1992, File No. 1-5885).
 
   
10.16
  1989 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10d to J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1994, File No. 1-5885).
 
   
10.17
  1987 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10e to J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1994, File No. 1-5885).
 
   
10.18
  Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10f to J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997, File No. 1-5885).
 
   
10.19
  Stock Option Award (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10h to J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1995, File No. 1-5885).
 
   
10.20
  1995 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10i to J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996, File No. 1-5885).
 
   
10.21
  1995 Executive Officer Performance Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10j to J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1995, File No. 1-5885).
 
   
10.22
  1998 Performance Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10 to J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1998, File No. 1-5885).
 
   
10.23
  Executive Retirement Plan of The Chase Manhattan Corporation and Certain Subsidiaries (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.25 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).
 
   
10.24
  Benefit Equalization Plan of The Chase Manhattan Corporation and Certain Subsidiaries (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.26 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (File No. 1-5805) for the year ended December 31, 2000).


17


Table of Contents

Part IV

     
12.1
  Computation of ratio of earnings to fixed charges.
 
   
12.2
  Computation of ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred stock dividend requirements.
 
   
21.1
  List of Subsidiaries of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
 
   
22.1
  Annual Report on Form 11-K of the JPMorgan Chase 401(k) Savings Plan (to be filed by amendment pursuant to Rule 15d-21 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934).
 
   
23.1
  Consent of independent accountants.
 
   
31.1
  Certification.
 
   
31.2
  Certification.
 
   
32
  Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

JPMorgan Chase hereby agrees to furnish to the Securities and Exchange Commission, upon request, copies of instruments defining the rights of holders for the outstanding nonregistered long-term debt of JPMorgan Chase and its subsidiaries. These instruments have not been filed as exhibits hereto by reason that the total amount of each issue of such securities does not exceed

10% of the total assets of JPMorgan Chase and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. In addition, JPMorgan Chase hereby agrees to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, upon request, the Guarantees and the Amended and Restated Trust Agreements for each Delaware business trust subsidiary that has issued Capital Securities. The provisions of such agreements differ from the documents constituting Exhibits 4.9(b) and (c) and 4.10(b) and (c) to this report only with respect to the pricing terms of each series of Capital Securities; these pricing terms are disclosed in Note 18 on page 111.

     
(B)
  Reports on form 8-K

JPMorgan Chase filed 3 reports on Form 8-K during the quarter ended December 31, 2003:

 
Form 8-K filed October 1, 2003: Press release announcing that J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. (“JPMSI”) had entered into an agreement with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 1, 2003 resolving matters relating to JPMSI’s initial public offering allocation practices.
 
 
Form 8-K filed October 22, 2003: Press release announcing JPMorgan Chase’s results for the third quarter of 2003.
 
 
Form 8-K filed October 27, 2003: Form of the Master Agency Agreement between JPMorgan Chase and the Agents listed on Exhibit A thereto, relating to the JPMorgan Chase Medium-Term Notes and Forms of Notes.



Pages 19-20 not used

18


Table of Contents

Table of contents

     
Financial:
     
Management’s discussion and analysis:
     
22  
Overview
     
25  
Results of operations
     
27  
Segment results
     
45  
Risk and Capital management
     
46  
Capital and Liquidity management
     
51  
Credit risk management
     
66  
Market risk management
     
72  
Operational risk management
     
74  
Private equity risk management
     
74  
Critical accounting estimates used by the Firm
     
78  
Accounting and reporting developments
     
80  
Comparison between 2002 and 2001
     
Audited financial statements:
     
81  
Management’s report on responsibility for financial reporting
     
81  
Report of independent auditors
     
82  
Consolidated financial statements
     
86  
Notes to consolidated financial statements
     
 
     
Supplementary information:
     
128  
Selected quarterly financial data
     
129  
Five-year summary of financial highlights
     
130  
Glossary of terms

 

This section of the Annual Report provides management’s discussion and analysis (“MD&A”) of the financial condition and results of operations for JPMorgan Chase. See Glossary of terms on pages 130 and 131 for a definition of terms used throughout this Annual Report.

Certain forward-looking statements

The MD&A contains certain forward-looking statements. Those forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, and JPMorgan Chase’s actual results may differ from those set forth in the forward-looking statements. See JPMorgan Chase’s reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for a discussion of factors that could cause JPMorgan Chase’s actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

21


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Overview

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. is a leading global financial services firm with assets of $771 billion and operations in more than 50 countries. The Firm serves more than 30 million consumers nationwide through its retail businesses, and many of the world’s most prominent corporate, institutional and government clients through its global wholesale businesses.

Financial performance of JPMorgan Chase

                         
As of or for the year ended December 31,                  
(in millions, except per share and ratio data)   2003     2002     Change  
 
Revenue
  $ 33,256     $ 29,614       12 %
Noninterest expense
    21,688       22,764       (5 )
Provision for credit losses
    1,540       4,331       (64 )
Net income
    6,719       1,663       304  
Net income per share – diluted
    3.24       0.80       305  
Average common equity
    42,988       41,368       4  
Return on average common equity (“ROCE”)
    16 %     4 %   1,200 bp
 
Tier 1 capital ratio
    8.5 %     8.2 %   30 bp
Total capital ratio
    11.8       12.0       (20 )
Tier 1 leverage ratio
    5.6       5.1       50  
 

In 2003, global growth strengthened relative to the prior two years. The U.S. economy improved significantly, supported by diminishing geopolitical uncertainties, new tax relief, strong profit growth, low interest rates and a rising stock market. Productivity at U.S. businesses continued to grow at an extraordinary pace, as a result of ongoing investment in information technologies. Profit margins rose to levels not seen in a long time. New hiring remained tepid, but signs of an improving job market emerged late in the year. Inflation fell to the lowest level in more than 40 years, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve Board”) declared that its long-run goal of price stability had been achieved.

Against this backdrop, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (“JPMorgan Chase” or the “Firm”) reported 2003 Net income of $6.7 billion, compared with Net income of $1.7 billion in 2002. All five of the Firm’s lines of business benefited from the improved economic conditions, with each reporting increased revenue over 2002. In particular, the low–interest rate environment drove robust fixed income markets and an unprecedented mortgage refinancing boom, resulting in record earnings in the Investment Bank and Chase Financial Services.

Total revenue for 2003 was $33.3 billion, up 12% from 2002. The Investment Bank’s revenue increased by approximately $1.9 billion from 2002, and Chase Financial Services’ revenue was $14.6 billion in 2003, another record year.

Total Noninterest expense was $21.7 billion, down 5% from the prior year. In 2002, the Firm recorded $1.3 billion of charges, principally for Enron-related surety litigation and the establishment of litigation reserves; and $1.2 billion for Merger and restructuring costs related to programs announced prior to January 1, 2002. Excluding these costs, expenses rose by 7% in 2003, reflecting higher performance-related incentives; increased costs related to stock-based compensation and pension and other postretirement expenses; and higher occupancy expenses. The Firm began expensing stock options in 2003. Restructuring costs associated with initiatives announced after January 1, 2002, were recorded in their relevant expense categories and totaled $630 million in 2003, down 29% from 2002.

The 2003 Provision for credit losses of $1.5 billion was down $2.8 billion, or 64%, from 2002. The provision was lower than total net charge-offs of $2.3 billion, reflecting significant improvement in the quality of the commercial loan portfolio. Commercial nonperforming assets and criticized exposure levels declined 42% and 47%, respectively, from December 31, 2002. Consumer credit quality remained stable.

Earnings per diluted share (“EPS”) for the year were $3.24, an increase of 305% over the EPS of $0.80 reported in 2002. Results in 2002 were provided on both a reported basis and an operating basis, which excluded Merger and restructuring costs and special items. Operating EPS in 2002 was $1.66. See page 28 of this Annual Report for a reconciliation between reported and operating EPS.

Summary of segment results

The Firm’s wholesale businesses are known globally as “JPMorgan,” and its national consumer and middle market businesses are known as “Chase.” The wholesale businesses comprise four segments: the Investment Bank (“IB”), Treasury & Securities Services (“TSS”), Investment Management & Private Banking (“IMPB”) and JPMorgan Partners (“JPMP”). IB provides a full range of investment banking and commercial banking products and services, including advising on corporate strategy and structure, capital raising, risk management, and market-making in cash securities and derivative instruments in all major capital markets. The three businesses within TSS provide debt servicing, securities custody and related functions, and treasury and cash management services to corporations, financial institutions and governments. The IMPB business provides investment management services to institutional investors, high net worth individuals and retail customers and also provides personalized advice and solutions to wealthy individuals and families. JPMP, the Firm’s private equity business, provides equity and mezzanine capital financing to private companies. The Firm’s national consumer and middle market businesses, which provide lending and full-service banking to consumers and small and middle market businesses, comprise Chase Financial Services (“CFS”).



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

22


Table of Contents

Segment results – Operating basis (a)

                                                 
    Operating revenue (loss)     Operating earnings (losses)        
Year ended December 31,   Change from     Change from     Return on allocated capital  
(in millions, except ratios)   2003     2002     2003     2002     2003     2002  
   
Investment Bank
  $ 14,440       16 %   $ 3,685       183 %     19 %     6 %
Treasury & Securities Services
    3,992       3       520       (16 )     19       23  
Investment Management & Private Banking
    2,878       1       268       3       5       5  
JPMorgan Partners
    (190 )     81       (293 )     64     NM     NM  
Chase Financial Services
    14,632       9       2,495       8       28       27  
Support Units and Corporate
    (626 )           44     NM     NM     NM  
   
JPMorgan Chase
  $ 35,126       13 %   $ 6,719       99 %     16 %     8 %
   
(a)  
Represents the reported results excluding the impact of credit card securitizations and, in 2002, merger and restructuring costs and special items.

The table above shows JPMorgan Chase’s segment results. These results reflect the manner in which the Firm’s financial information is currently evaluated by management and is presented on an operating basis. Prior-period segment results have been adjusted to reflect alignment of management accounting policies or changes in organizational structure among businesses.

IB reported record earnings of $3.7 billion for 2003, up 183% from 2002, driven by strong growth in capital markets revenues and equity underwriting fees, coupled with a significant decline in credit costs. The low–interest-rate environment, improvement in equity markets and volatility in credit markets produced increased client and portfolio management revenue in fixed income and equities, as well as strong returns in Global Treasury. Market-share gains in equity underwriting contributed to the increase in Investment banking fees over 2002. IB’s return on allocated capital was 19% for the year.

TSS earnings of $520 million for the year were down 16% compared with 2002. Revenues were $4.0 billion for the full year, up 3% from 2002. Institutional Trust Services and Treasury Services posted single-digit revenue growth. Investor Services revenue declined year-over-year but showed an improving trend over the last four consecutive quarters. Return on allocated capital for TSS was 19% for the year.

IMPB increased earnings and assets under supervision in 2003. Earnings of $268 million for the full year were up 3% from 2002, reflecting an improved credit portfolio, slightly higher revenues and the benefits of managed expense growth. The increase in revenues reflected the acquisition of Retirement Plan Services, and increased average equity market valuations in client portfolios and brokerage activity, mostly offset by the impact of institutional net outflows. Investment performance in core institutional products improved, with all major asset classes in U.S. institutional fixed income and equities showing above-benchmark results. Return on allocated capital was 5% for the year; return on tangible allocated capital was 20%.

JPMP performance improved significantly, with private equity gains of $27 million, compared with private equity losses of $733 million for 2002. Results for the direct investments portfolio improved by $929 million from 2002, driven by realized gains on sales and declining write-downs in the second half of 2003.

JPMP revenue was impacted in 2003 by losses on sales and writedowns of private third-party fund investments. JPMP decreased its operating loss for the year by 64% compared with 2002.

CFS posted record earnings of $2.5 billion, driven by record results and origination volumes at each of the national credit businesses –mortgage, credit card and auto. Record revenues for CFS of $14.6 billion were up 9% from 2002, driven by record revenues in Chase Home Finance. Despite significant deposit growth, Chase Regional Banking revenues decreased due to deposit spread compression. CFS’s return on allocated capital was 28% for the year.

In 2003, JPMorgan Chase revised its internal management reporting policies to allocate certain revenues, expenses and tax-related items that had been recorded within the Corporate segment to the other business segments. There was no impact on the Firm’s overall earnings.

For a discussion of the Firm’s Segment results, see pages 27–44 of this Annual Report.

Capital and liquidity management

JPMorgan Chase increased capital during 2003. At December 31, 2003, the Firm’s Tier 1 capital was $43.2 billion, $5.6 billion higher than at December 31, 2002. The Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5% was well in excess of the minimum regulatory guidelines, it was 8.2% at year-end 2002. The Firm maintained the quarterly dividend of $0.34 per share on its common stock. JPMorgan Chase did not repurchase shares of its common stock in 2003. Management expects to recommend to the Board of Directors that the Firm resume its share repurchase program after the completion of the pending merger with Bank One Corporation (see Business events below).

The Firm’s liquidity management is designed to ensure sufficient liquidity resources to meet all its obligations, both on- and off–balance sheet, in a wide range of market environments. The Firm’s access to the unsecured funding markets is dependent upon its credit rating. During 2003, the Firm maintained senior debt ratings of AA-/Aa3/A+ at JPMorgan Chase Bank and A+/A1/A+ at the parent holding company. Upon the announcement of the proposed merger with Bank One Corporation, Moody’s and Fitch placed the Firm’s ratings on review for an



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

23


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

upgrade, and S&P affirmed all of the Firm’s ratings. See Business events below.

Risk management

The Firm made substantial progress in lowering its risk profile in 2003.

Total commercial credit exposure, which includes loans, derivative receivables, lending-related commitments and other assets, declined by $30.2 billion, or 7%, from December 31, 2002. Increased financings in the public markets, reduced loan demand and loan sales drove the decline. In 2003, the Firm implemented a more stringent exposure-review process and lower absolute exposure limits for industry and single-name concentrations, including investment-grade obligors. The Firm was also more active in managing commercial credit by selling higher-risk loans and commitments and entering into single-name credit default swap hedges.

Total consumer loans on a managed basis, which includes both reported and securitized loans, increased by $15.7 billion, or 10%, from December 31, 2002. The consumer portfolio is predominantly U.S.-based. The largest component, 1–4 family residential mortgage loans, which are primarily secured by first mortgages, comprised 43% of the total consumer portfolio at December 31, 2003.

JPMP’s private equity portfolio declined by 12% to $7.3 billion at December 31, 2003, from $8.2 billion at December 31, 2002. At year-end 2003, the portfolio was diversified across industry sectors and geographies – with a higher percentage invested in more mature leveraged buyouts and a lower percentage in venture investments than at year-end 2002. The carrying value of JPMP’s portfolio has decreased year-over-year, consistent with management’s goal to reduce, over time, the capital committed to private equity.

The Firm uses several tools, both statistical and nonstatistical, to measure market risk, including Value-at-Risk (“VAR”), Risk identification for large exposures (“RIFLE”), economic value stress tests and net interest income stress tests. The Firm calculates VAR daily on its trading and nontrading activities. Average trading VAR decreased for full-year 2003. The year-end trading VAR increased compared with year-end 2002 due to higher VAR for equity activities. In 2003, trading losses exceeded VAR on only one day, a result that is consistent with the 99% confidence level. Average, maximum, and December 31 nontrading VAR increased in 2003, primarily due to the increase in market volatility during the 2003 third quarter and to the rise in interest rates in the second half of 2003. There was an additional day in 2003 in which losses exceeded VAR; this was attributable to certain positions in the mortgage banking business.

The Firm is also committed to maintaining business practices of the highest quality. The Fiduciary Risk Committee is responsible for overseeing that businesses providing investment or risk management products and services perform at the appropriate standard in their relationships with clients. In addition, the Policy Review Office oversees the review of transactions with clients in terms of appropriateness, ethical issues and reputation risk, with

the goal that these transactions are not used to mislead investors or others.

During the year, the Firm revised its capital allocation methodologies for credit, operational, business and private equity risk. This resulted in the reallocation of capital among the risk categories and the business segments; the reallocation did not result in a significant change in the amount of total capital allocated to the business segments as a whole.

For a further discussion of Risk management and the capital allocation methodology, see pages 45-74 of this Annual Report.

Business outlook

Global economic conditions and financial markets activity are expected to continue to improve in 2004. While rising interest rates may negatively affect the mortgage and Global Treasury businesses; on the positive side, gains in market share, rising equity values and increased market activity may benefit many of the Firm’s other businesses.

The Firm expects to see a different mix of earnings in 2004. IB is targeting higher issuer and investor client revenue, but securities gains and net interest income may be lower. Mortgage earnings are likely to decline from the record set in 2003, and growth in other retail businesses may not be sufficient to offset the decline in mortgage revenue. Improved equity markets and increased M&A activity may provide increased exit opportunities in private equity and could result in higher fees in IMPB and in the custody business of TSS. Commercial net charge-off ratios may be lower, but credit costs may rise as the reduction in the Allowance for credit losses slows. The Firm expects stable consumer net charge-off ratios in 2004.

Business events

Agreement to merge with Bank One Corporation

On January 14, 2004, JPMorgan Chase and Bank One Corporation (“Bank One”) announced an agreement to merge. The merger agreement, which has been approved by the boards of directors of both companies, provides for a stock-for-stock merger in which 1.32 shares of JPMorgan Chase common stock will be exchanged, on a tax-free basis, for each share of Bank One common stock.

The merged company, headquartered in New York, will be known as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and will have combined assets of $1.1 trillion, a strong capital base, 2,300 branches in 17 states and top-tier positions in retail banking and lending, credit cards, investment banking, asset management, private banking, treasury and securities services, middle markets and private equity. It is expected that cost savings of $2.2 billion (pre-tax) will be achieved over a three-year period. Merger-related costs are expected to be $3 billion (pre-tax).

The merger is subject to approval by the shareholders of both institutions as well as U.S. federal and state and non-U.S. regulatory authorities. It is expected to be completed in mid-2004.

For further information concerning the merger, see Note 2 on page 87 of this Annual Report.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

24


Table of Contents

Results of operations

This section discusses JPMorgan Chase’s results of operations on a reported basis. The accompanying financial data conforms with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and prevailing industry practices. The section should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated financial statements and Notes to consolidated financial statements beginning on page 82 of this Annual Report.

Revenues

                         
Year ended December 31,                  
(in millions)   2003     2002     Change  
 
Investment banking fees
  $ 2,890     $ 2,763       5 %
Trading revenue
    4,427       2,675       65  
Fees and commissions
    10,652       10,387       3  
Private equity gains (losses)
    33       (746 )   NM  
Securities gains
    1,446       1,563       (7 )
Mortgage fees and related income
    892       988       (10 )
Other revenue
    579       458       26  
Net interest income
    12,337       11,526       7  
 
Total revenue
  $ 33,256     $ 29,614       12 %
 

Investment banking fees

Investment banking fees of $2.9 billion rose 5% from 2002. For a discussion of Investment banking fees, which are primarily recorded in IB, see IB segment results on pages 29–31 of this Annual Report.

Trading revenue

Trading revenue in 2003 of $4.4 billion was up 65% from the prior year. Fixed income and equity capital markets activities drove growth in both client and portfolio management revenues. Portfolio management, in particular, was up significantly from 2002 as a result of gains in credit, foreign exchange and equity derivatives activities. Trading revenue, on a reported basis, excludes the impact of Net interest income (“NII”) related to IB’s trading activities, which is reported in NII. However, the Firm includes trading-related NII as part of Trading revenue for segment reporting purposes to better assess the profitability of IB’s trading business. For additional information on Trading revenue, see IB segment discussion on pages 29–31 of this Annual Report.

Fees and commissions

Fees and commissions of $10.7 billion in 2003 rose 3% from the prior year as a result of higher credit card servicing fees associated with $5.8 billion in growth in average securitized credit card receivables. Also contributing to the increase from 2002 were higher custody, institutional trust and other processing-related service fees. These fees reflected the more favorable environment for debt and equity activities. For a table showing the components of Fees and commissions, see Note 4 on pages 88–89 of this Annual Report.

For additional information on Fees and commissions, see the segment discussions of TSS for Custody and institutional trust service fees, IMPB for Investment management and service fees, and CFS for consumer-related fees on pages 32–33, 34–35 and 38–43, respectively, of this Annual Report.

Private equity gains (losses)

Private equity gains of $33 million in 2003 reflect significant improvement from losses of $746 million in 2002. For a discussion of Private equity gains (losses), which are primarily recorded in JPMP, see JPMP results on pages 36–37.

Securities gains

In 2003, Securities gains of $1.4 billion declined 7% from the prior year. The decline reflected lower gains realized from the sale of government and agency securities in IB and mortgage-backed securities in Chase Home Finance (“CHF”), driven by the increasing interest rate environment beginning in the third quarter of 2003. IB uses available-for-sale investment securities to manage, in part, the asset/liability exposures of the Firm; CHF uses these instruments to economically hedge the value of mortgage servicing rights (“MSRs”). For a further analysis of securities gains, see IB and CHF on pages 29–31 and 39–40, respectively, of this Annual Report.

Mortgage fees and related income

Mortgage fees and related income of $892 million in 2003 declined 10% from 2002. The decline reflects lower mortgage servicing fees and lower revenues from MSR hedging activities; these were offset by higher fees from origination and sales activity and other fees derived from volume and market-share growth. Mortgage fees and related income, on a reported basis, excludes the impact of NII and securities gains and losses related to Chase Home Finance’s mortgage banking activities. For a further discussion of mortgage-related revenue, see the segment discussion for Chase Home Finance on pages 39–40 and Note 4 on page 89 of this Annual Report.

Other revenue

Other revenue of $579 million in 2003 rose 26% from the prior year. The increase was a result of $200 million in gains from the sale of securities acquired in loan satisfactions (compared with $26 million in 2002), partly offset by lower net results from corporate and bank-owned life insurance policies. Many other factors contributed to the change from 2002, including $73 million of write-downs taken in 2002 for several Latin American investments.

Net interest income

NII of $12.3 billion was 7% higher than in 2002. The increase reflected the positive impact of lower interest rates on consumer loan originations and related funding costs. Average mortgage loans in CHF rose 32% to $74.1 billion, and average automobile loans and leases in Chase Auto Finance increased 32% to



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

25


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

$41.7 billion. NII was reduced by a lower volume of commercial loans and lower spreads on investment securities. As a component of NII, trading-related net interest income of $2.1 billion was up 13% from 2002 due to a change in the composition of, and growth in, trading assets.

The Firm’s total average interest-earning assets in 2003 were $590 billion, up 6% from the prior year. The net interest yield on these assets, on a fully taxable-equivalent basis, was 2.10%, compared with 2.09% in the prior year.

Noninterest expense

                         
Year ended December 31,                  
(in millions)   2003     2002     Change  
 
Compensation expense
  $ 11,695     $ 10,983       6 %
Occupancy expense
    1,912       1,606       19  
Technology and communications expense
    2,844       2,554       11  
Other expense
    5,137       5,111       1  
Surety settlement and litigation reserve
    100       1,300       (92 )
Merger and restructuring costs
          1,210     NM  
 
Total noninterest expense
  $ 21,688     $ 22,764       (5 )%
 

Compensation expense

Compensation expense in 2003 was 6% higher than in the prior year. The increase principally reflected higher performance-related incentives, and higher pension and other postretirement benefit costs, primarily as a result of changes in actuarial assumptions. For a detailed discussion of pension and other postretirement benefit costs, see Note 6 on pages 89–93 of this Annual Report. The increase pertaining to incentives included $266 million as a result of adopting SFAS 123, and $120 million from the reversal in 2002 of previously accrued expenses for certain forfeitable key employee stock awards, as discussed in Note 7 on pages 93–95 of this Annual Report. Total compensation expense declined as a result of the transfer, beginning April 1, 2003, of 2,800 employees to IBM in connection with a technology outsourcing agreement. The total number of full-time equivalent employees at December 31, 2003 was 93,453 compared with 94,335 at the prior year-end.

Occupancy expense

Occupancy expense of $1.9 billion rose 19% from 2002. The increase reflected costs of additional leased space in midtown Manhattan and in the South and Southwest regions of the United States; higher real estate taxes in New York City; and the cost of enhanced safety measures. Also contributing to the increase were charges for unoccupied excess real estate of $270 million; this compared with $120 million in 2002, mostly in the third quarter of that year.

Technology and communications expense

In 2003, Technology and communications expense was 11% above the prior-year level. The increase was primarily due to a shift in expenses: costs that were previously associated with Compensation and Other expenses shifted, upon the commencement of the IBM outsourcing agreement, to Technology and communications expense. Also contributing to the increase were higher costs related to software amortization. For a further discussion of the IBM outsourcing agreement, see Support Units and Corporate on page 44 of this Annual Report.

Other expense

Other expense in 2003 rose slightly from the prior year, reflecting higher Outside services. For a table showing the components of Other expense, see Note 8 on page 96 of this Annual Report.

Surety settlement and litigation reserve

The Firm added $100 million to the Enron-related litigation reserve in 2003 to supplement a $900 million reserve initially recorded in 2002. The 2002 reserve was established to cover Enron-related matters, as well as certain other material litigation, proceedings and investigations in which the Firm is involved. In addition, in 2002 the Firm recorded a charge of $400 million for the settlement of Enron-related surety litigation.

Merger and restructuring costs

Merger and restructuring costs related to business restructurings announced after January 1, 2002, were recorded in their relevant expense categories. In 2002, Merger and restructuring costs of $1.2 billion, for programs announced prior to January 1, 2002, were viewed by management as nonoperating expenses or “special items.” Refer to Note 8 on pages 95–96 of this Annual Report for a further discussion of Merger and restructuring costs and for a summary, by expense category and business segment, of costs incurred in 2003 and 2002 for programs announced after January 1, 2002.

Provision for credit losses

The 2003 Provision for credit losses was $2.8 billion lower than in 2002, primarily reflecting continued improvement in the quality of the commercial loan portfolio and a higher volume of credit card securitizations. For further information about the Provision for credit losses and the Firm’s management of credit risk, see the discussions of net charge-offs associated with the commercial and consumer loan portfolios and the Allowance for credit losses, on pages 63–65 of this Annual Report.

Income tax expense

Income tax expense was $3.3 billion in 2003, compared with $856 million in 2002. The effective tax rate in 2003 was 33%, compared with 34% in 2002. The tax rate decline was principally attributable to changes in the proportion of income subject to state and local taxes.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

26


Table of Contents

Segment results

JPMorgan Chase’s lines of business are segmented based on the products and services provided or the type of customer serviced and reflect the manner in which financial information is currently evaluated by the Firm’s management. Revenues and expenses directly associated with each segment are included in determining that segment’s results. Management accounting and other policies exist to allocate those remaining expenses that are not directly incurred by the segments.

Overview

The wholesale businesses of JPMorgan Chase are known globally as “JPMorgan” and comprise the Investment Bank, Treasury & Securities Services, Investment Management & Private Banking and JPMorgan Partners. The national consumer and middle market businesses are known as “Chase” and collectively comprise Chase Financial Services.

Basis of presentation

The Firm prepares its consolidated financial statements, which appear on pages 82–85 of this Annual Report, using U.S. GAAP and prevailing industry practices. The financial statements are presented on a “reported basis,” which provides the reader with an understanding of the Firm’s results that can be consistently tracked from year to year and enables a comparison of the Firm’s performance with other companies’ U.S. GAAP financial statements.

In addition to analyzing the Firm’s results on a reported basis, management looks at results on an “operating basis,” which is a non-GAAP financial measure, to assess each of its lines of business and to measure overall Firm results against targeted goals. The definition of operating basis starts with the reported U.S. GAAP results and then excludes the impact of credit card securitizations. Securitization does not change JPMorgan Chase’s reported versus operating net income; however, it does affect the classification of items in the Consolidated statement of income. For a further discussion of credit card securitizations, see Chase Cardmember Services on page 41 of this Annual Report.

Prior to 2003, the Firm excluded from its operating results the impact of merger and restructuring costs and special items, as these transactions were viewed by management as not part of the Firm’s normal daily business operations or unusual in nature and, therefore, not indicative of trends. To be considered a special item, the nonrecurring gain or loss had to be at least $75 million or more during 2002. Commencing in 2003, management determined that many of the costs previously considered nonoperating were to be deemed operating costs. However, it is possible that in the future, management may designate certain material gains or losses incurred by the Firm to be “special items.”

The segment results also reflect revenue- and expense-sharing agreements between certain lines of business. Revenue and expenses attributed to shared activities are recognized in each line of business, and any double counting is eliminated at the segment level. These arrangements promote cross-selling and management of shared client expenses. They also ensure that the contributions of both businesses are fully recognized.

Prior-period segment results have been adjusted to reflect alignment of management accounting policies or changes in organizational structure among businesses. Restatements of segment results may occur in the future.

See Note 34 on pages 126-127 of this Annual Report for further information about JPMorgan Chase’s five business segments.

Capital allocation

The Firm allocates capital to its business units utilizing a risk-adjusted methodology, which quantifies credit, market, operational and business risks within each business and additionally, for JPMP, private equity risk. For a discussion of those risks, see the risk management sections on pages 45–74 of this Annual Report. The Firm allocates additional capital to its businesses incorporating an “asset capital tax” on managed assets and some off–balance sheet instruments. In addition, businesses are allocated capital equal to 100% of goodwill and 50% for certain



(FLOW CHART)

JPMorgan is the brand name.JPMorgan ChaseChase is the brand name.Investment Treasury &InvestmentJPMorgan Chase Financial BankSecurities Management &PartnersServices ServicesPrivate BankingProduct type:Businesses:Businesses:Business:Businesses:•Advisory• Institutional Trust• Investment• Private equity• Home Finance•Debt and equityServicesManagementinvestments• Cardmember Services underwriting• Investor Services• Private Banking•Auto Finance•Market-making,• Treasury Services• Regional Banking trading and investing:• Middle Market — Fixed income - Treasury — Equities•Corporate lending

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

27


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

The accompanying summary table provides a reconciliation between the Firm’s reported and operating results.

                                                         
    2003 2002
Year ended December 31,   Reported     Credit     Operating     Reported     Credit     Special     Operating  
(in millions, except per share data and ratios)   results(a)     card(b)     basis     results(a)     card(b)     items(c)     basis  
 
Consolidated income statement
                                                       
Total revenue
  $ 33,256     $ 1,870     $ 35,126     $ 29,614     $ 1,439     $     $ 31,053  
Noninterest expense:
                                                       
Compensation expense (d)
    11,695             11,695       10,983                   10,983  
Noncompensation expense (d)
    9,993             9,993       10,571             (1,398 )     9,173  
Merger and restructuring costs
                      1,210             (1,210 )      
 
Total noninterest expense
    21,688             21,688       22,764             (2,608 )     20,156  
Provision for credit losses
    1,540       1,870       3,410 (e)     4,331       1,439             5,770 (e)
 
Income before income tax expense
    10,028             10,028       2,519             2,608       5,127  
Income tax expense
    3,309             3,309       856             887       1,743  
 
Net income
  $ 6,719     $     $ 6,719     $ 1,663     $     $ 1,721     $ 3,384  
 
Earnings per share – diluted
  $ 3.24     $     $ 3.24     $ 0.80     $     $ 0.86     $ 1.66  
 
Return on average common equity (f)
    16 %             16 %     4 %                     8 %
 
(a)  
Represents condensed results as reported in JPMorgan Chase’s financial statements.
(b)  
Represents the impact of credit card securitizations. For securitized receivables, amounts that normally would be reported as Net interest income and as Provision for credit losses are reported as Noninterest revenue.
(c)  
There were no special items in 2003. For 2002, includes merger and restructuring costs. For a description of special items, see Glossary of terms on page 131 of this Annual Report.
(d)  
Compensation expense includes $294 million and $746 million of severance and related costs at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. Noncompensation expense includes $336 million and $144 million of severance and related costs at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
(e)  
Represents credit costs, which is composed of the Provision for credit losses as well as the credit costs associated with securitized credit card loans.
(f)  
Reflects the return on average common equity as it relates to the Firm. Return on allocated capital is a similar metric used by the business segments.

other intangibles generated through acquisitions. The Firm estimates the portfolio effect on required economic capital based on correlations of risk across risk categories. This estimated diversification benefit is not allocated to the business segments.

Performance measurement

The Firm uses the shareholder value added (“SVA”) framework to measure the performance of its business segments. To derive SVA, a non-GAAP financial measure, for its business segments, the Firm applies a 12% (after-tax) cost of capital to each segment, except JPMP – this business is charged a 15% (after-tax) cost of capital. The capital elements and resultant capital charges provide each business with the financial framework to evaluate the trade-off between using capital versus its return to sharehold-

ers. Capital charges are an integral part of the SVA measurement for each business. Under the Firm’s model, economic capital is either underallocated or overallocated to the business segments, as compared with the Firm’s total common stockholders’ equity. The revenue and SVA impact of this over/under allocation is reported under Support Units and Corporate. See Glossary of terms on page 131 of this Annual Report for a definition of SVA and page 44 of this Annual Report for more details.

JPMorgan Chase’s lines of business utilize individual performance metrics unique to the respective businesses to measure their results versus those of their peers. For a further discussion of these metrics, see each respective line-of-business discussion in this Annual Report.



(PIE CHART)

Contribution of businesses in 2003 Operating revenue (loss)Consumer 42%Wholesale and other 58%Consumer includes:Wholesale and other includes:Chase Home Finance12% Investment Bank41% Chase Cardmember Services 18% Treasury & Securities Services 12% Chase Auto Finance2% Investment Management & Private Banking8% Chase Regional Banking7% Chase Middle Market4% JPMorgan Partners(1)% Other consumer services(1)% Support Units and Corporate (2)%

(PIE CHART)

Operating earnings (losses) Consumer 37%Wholesale and other 63%Consumer includes:Wholesale and other includes:Chase Home Finance20% Investment Bank55% Chase Cardmember Services 10% Treasury & Securities Services 8% Chase Auto Finance3% Investment Management & Private Banking4% Chase Regional Banking1% Chase Middle Market5% JPMorgan Partners(4)% Other consumer services(2)% Support Units and Corporate —%


J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

28


Table of Contents

Investment Bank

JPMorgan Chase is one of the world’s leading investment banks, as evidenced by the breadth of its client relationships and product capabilities. The Investment Bank has extensive relationships with corporations, financial institutions, governments and institutional investors worldwide. The Firm provides a full range of investment banking and commercial banking products and services, including advising on corporate strategy and structure, capital raising in equity and debt markets, sophisticated risk management, and market-making in cash securities and derivative instruments in all major capital markets. The Investment Bank also commits the Firm’s own capital to proprietary investing and trading activities.

                         
Selected financial data                  
Year ended December 31,                  
(in millions, except ratios                  
and employees)   2003     2002     Change  
 
Operating revenue:
                       
Investment banking fees
  $ 2,855     $ 2,696       6 %
Capital markets and lending revenue:
                       
Trading-related revenue(a)
    6,418       4,479       43  
Net interest income
    2,277       2,642       (14 )
Fees and commissions
    1,646       1,619       2  
Securities gains
    1,065       1,076       (1 )
All other revenue
    179       (14 )   NM  
 
                   
Total capital markets and lending revenue
    11,585       9,802       18  
 
                   
Total operating revenue
    14,440       12,498       16  
Operating expense:
                       
Compensation expense
    4,527       3,974       14  
Noncompensation expense
    3,596       3,451       4  
Severance and related costs
    347       587       (41 )
 
                   
Total operating expense
    8,470       8,012       6  
Operating margin
    5,970       4,486       33  
Credit costs
    (181 )     2,393     NM  
Corporate credit allocation
    (36 )     (82 )     56  
Operating earnings
  $ 3,685     $ 1,303       183  
 
                   
Shareholder value added:
                       
Operating earnings less preferred dividends
  $ 3,663     $ 1,281       186  
Less: cost of capital
    2,295       2,390       (4 )
 
                   
Shareholder value added
  $ 1,368     $ (1,109 )   NM  
 
                   
Average allocated capital
  $ 19,134     $ 19,915       (4 )
Average assets
    510,894       495,464       3  
Return on allocated capital
    19 %     6 %   1,300 bp
Overhead ratio
    59       64       (500 )
Compensation as % of revenue(b)
    31       32       (100 )
Full-time equivalent employees
    14,772       15,145       (2 )%
 
(a)  
Includes net interest income of $2.1 billion and $1.9 billion in 2003 and 2002, respectively.
(b)  
Excludes severance and related costs.

(BAR CHARTS)

Operating revenue Operating earnings (in millions)(in millions, except ratios)Return on allocated capital

Financial results overview

The 2003 performance of IB was positively influenced by a low interest-rate environment, a more favorable equities market and an improving credit market, partially offset by continued weakness in M&A activity.

In 2003, IB reported record operating earnings of $3.7 billion, an increase of 183% compared with 2002. Revenue growth of 16% far outpaced expense growth of 6%. Credit costs were negative $181 million in 2003, compared with $2.4 billion in 2002. Return on allocated capital for the year was 19%.

Operating revenue of $14.4 billion consisted of investment banking fees for advisory and underwriting services; capital markets revenue related to market-making, trading and investing; and revenue from corporate lending activities.

                         
Year ended December 31,                  
(in millions)   2003     2002     Change  
 
Investment banking fees
                       
Advisory
  $ 640     $ 743       (14 )%
Equity underwriting
    697       470       48  
Debt underwriting
    1,518       1,483       2  
 
Total
  $ 2,855     $ 2,696       6 %
 

Investment banking fees of $2.9 billion were up 6%. While Advisory fees declined by 14%, reflecting depressed levels of M&A activity, debt underwriting fees were up 2%. This 2% increase is primarily due to growth in high yield underwriting and structured finance fees and reflects a partial offset of lower loan syndication fees. The key contributor to the overall increase in IB fees was equity underwriting revenue, which was up 48%, reflecting increases in market share and underwriting volumes.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

29


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Market shares and rankings(a)

            2003   2002
December 31,   Market share     Ranking     Market share     Ranking  
 
     
Global syndicated loans
    18 %     #1       23 %     #1  
     
Global investment-grade bonds
    8       #2       9       #2  
     
Euro-denominated corporate international bonds
    5       #6       6       #4  
     
Global equity & equity-related
    9       #4       4       #8  
     
U.S. equity & equity-related
    11       #4       6       #6  
     
Global announced M&A
    16       #5       14       #5  
 
(a)  
Derived from Thomson Financial Securities Data, which reflects subsequent updates to prior-period information. Global announced M&A based on rank value; all others based on 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%.

The Firm improved its ranking in global equity and equity-related underwriting to No. 4 from No. 8 in 2002. It also maintained its No. 2 ranking in underwriting global investment-grade bonds, its No. 1 ranking in global loan syndications and its No. 5 ranking in global announced M&A.

Capital markets revenue includes Trading revenue, Fees and commissions, Securities gains, related Net interest income and Other revenue. These activities are managed on a total-return revenue basis, which includes operating revenue plus the change in unrealized gains or losses on investment securities and hedges (included in Other comprehensive income) and internally transfer-priced assets and liabilities. Capital markets revenue includes client and portfolio management revenues. Portfolio management reflects net gains or losses from IB’s proprietary trading and revenue from risk positions in client-related market-making activities.

Capital markets and lending total-return revenue of $11.6 billion was up 22% from last year due to strong client and portfolio management revenue. Excluding Global Treasury, Capital markets and lending total-return revenue was $9.9 billion, up 25% from the prior year.

Fixed income revenue of $7.0 billion was up 28% from last year. The increase was driven by strong client driven activity in European and emerging markets, as well as increased portfolio management revenue in credit and foreign exchange markets. Global Treasury reported record revenue of $1.7 billion, up 11%



Reconciliation of Capital markets and lending operating revenue to total-return revenue

                                                 
    Trading-related     Fees and     Securities     NII and     Total operating     Total-return  
Year ended December 31, 2003 (in millions)   revenue     commissions     gains     other     revenue     revenue(a)  
 
Fixed income
  $ 5,991     $ 342     $ 56     $ 550     $ 6,939     $ 7,001  
Global Treasury
    64       1       1,002       659       1,726       1,684  
Credit portfolio
    (185 )     368       1       1,237       1,421       1,421  
Equities
    548       935       6       10       1,499       1,499  
 
Total
  $ 6,418     $ 1,646     $ 1,065     $ 2,456     $ 11,585     $ 11,605  
 
Year ended December 31, 2002 (in millions)
                                               
 
Fixed income
  $ 4,589     $ 345     $ 11     $ 542     $ 5,487     $ 5,466  
Global Treasury
    22             1,061       732       1,815       1,513  
Credit portfolio
    (143 )     358       3       1,288       1,506       1,506  
Equities
    11       916       1       66       994       994  
 
Total
  $ 4,479     $ 1,619     $ 1,076     $ 2,628     $ 9,802     $ 9,479  
 
(a)  
Total-return revenue, a non-GAAP financial measure, represents operating revenue plus the change in unrealized gains or losses on investment securities and hedges (included in Other comprehensive income) and internally transfer-priced assets and liabilities.

IB’s Capital markets and lending activities are comprised of the following:

Fixed income includes client and portfolio management revenue related to both market-making and proprietary risk-taking across global fixed income markets, including government and corporate debt, foreign exchange, interest rate and commodities markets.

Global Treasury manages the overall interest rate exposure and investment securities portfolio of the Firm. It creates strategic balance by providing a diversification benefit to the Firm’s trading, lending and fee-based activities.

Credit portfolio revenue includes net interest income, fees and loan sale activity for IB’s commercial credit portfolio. Credit portfolio revenue also includes gains or losses on securities received as

part of a loan restructuring, and changes in the credit valuation adjustment (“CVA”), which is the component of the fair value of a derivative that reflects the credit quality of the counterparty. See page 59 of the Credit risk management section of this Annual Report for a further discussion of the CVA. Credit portfolio revenue also includes the results of single-name and portfolio hedging arising from the Firm’s lending and derivative activities. See pages 60–61 of the Credit risk management section of this Annual Report for a further discussion on credit derivatives.

Equities includes client and portfolio management revenue related to market-making and proprietary risk-taking across global equity products, including cash instruments, derivatives and convertibles.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

30


Table of Contents

from last year, driven by positioning to benefit from interest rate movements and mortgage basis volatility. Credit portfolio revenue of $1.4 billion was down 6% the result of tightening of credit spreads in the second quarter of 2003, as well as lower NII, which reflected lower levels of commercial loans. Equities revenue of $1.5 billion was up 51% from last year due to higher client activity and portfolio management results in derivatives and convertibles.

Operating expense increased 6% from 2002, reflecting higher incentives related to improved financial performance and the impact of expensing stock options. Noncompensation costs were up 4% from the prior year due to increases in technology and occupancy costs. Severance and related costs of $347 million were down 41%. The overhead ratio for 2003 was 59%, compared with 64% in 2002.

Credit costs were negative $181 million, $2.6 billion lower than in the prior year, reflecting improvement in the overall credit quality of the commercial portfolio and the restructuring of several nonperforming commercial loans.

Corporate credit allocation
In 2003, IB assigned to TSS pre-tax earnings and allocated capital associated with clients shared with TSS. Prior periods have been revised to reflect this allocation. The impact to IB of this change decreased pre-tax operating results by $36 million and

Client and Nonclient Revenue

 
Year ended December 31,                  
(in millions)   2003     2002     Change  
 
Client revenue:
                       
Investment banking fees
  $ 2,855     $ 2,696       6 %
Capital markets revenue:
                       
Trading revenue
    4,485       3,840       17  
Other capital markets revenue
    2,904       2,875       1  
 
Total client revenue
    10,244       9,411       9  
 
Nonclient revenue:
                       
Treasury revenue
    1,726       1,815       (5 )
Portfolio management revenue
    2,470       1,272       94  
 
Total nonclient revenue
    4,196       3,087       36  
 
Operating revenue
  $ 14,440     $ 12,498       16 %
 

average allocated capital by $712 million, and it increased shareholder value added by $65 million.

Business outlook
In 2004, the composition of IB’s revenues is expected to change. Growth in client-related revenue may be offset by potentially lower securities gains and NII. NII may be lower due to decreased spreads on investment securities and lower loan volumes. The IB credit outlook is stable, although credit costs may be higher than the unusually low levels seen in 2003.



(PIE CHARTS)

IB Dimensions of 2003 revenue diversification By business revenueBy client segment By geographic regionFixed income capital markets 48%Financial institutions 54%North America 56% Treasury 12%Diversified industries 12% Europe/Middle East Debt underwriting 11%31% TMT 11%and Africa Equity capital markets 10% Natural resources 8% Credit portfolio 10%Asia/Pacific 8% Equity underwriting 5%Governments 7% Advisory 4%Consumer/healthcare 5%Latin America 5% Real estate 3%

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

31


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Treasury & Securities Services

Treasury & Securities Services, a global leader in transaction processing and information services to wholesale clients, is composed of three businesses. Institutional Trust Services provides a range of services to debt and equity issuers and broker-dealers, from traditional trustee and paying-agent functions to global securities clearance. Investor Services provides securities custody and related functions, such as securities lending, investment analytics and reporting, to mutual funds, investment managers, pension funds, insurance companies and banks worldwide. Treasury Services provides treasury and cash management, as well as payment, liquidity management and trade finance services, to a diversified global client base of corporations, financial institutions and governments.

Selected financial data

                         
Year ended December 31,                  
(in millions, except ratios                  
and employees)   2003     2002     Change  
 
Operating revenue:
                       
Fees and commissions
  $ 2,562     $ 2,412       6 %
Net interest income
    1,219       1,224        
All other revenue
    211       256       (18 )
 
                   
Total operating revenue
    3,992       3,892       3  
Operating expense:
                       
Compensation expense
    1,261       1,163       8  
Noncompensation expense
    1,895       1,814       4  
Severance and related costs
    61       17       259  
 
                   
Total operating expense
    3,217       2,994       7  
Operating margin
    775       898       (14 )
Credit costs
    1       1        
Corporate credit allocation
    36       82       (56 )
Operating earnings
  $ 520     $ 621       (16 )
 
                   
Shareholder value added:
                       
Operating earnings less preferred dividends
  $ 517     $ 619       (16 )
Less: cost of capital
    325       323       1  
 
                   
Shareholder value added
  $ 192     $ 296       (35 )
 
                   
Average allocated capital
  $ 2,711     $ 2,688       1  
Average assets
    18,993       17,780       7  
Return on allocated capital
    19 %     23 %     (400 )bp
Overhead ratio
    81       77       400  
Assets under custody (in billions)
  $ 7,597     $ 6,336       20 %
Full-time equivalent employees
    14,616       14,440       1  
 

Financial results overview

Treasury & Securities Services (“TSS”) operating earnings decreased by 16% from 2002 while delivering a return on allocated capital of 19%. Increased operating expense of 7% and a lower corporate credit allocation contributed to the lower earnings.

Operating revenue increased by 3%, with growth at Institutional Trust Services (“ITS”) of 7%. ITS revenue growth came from debt product lines, increased volume in asset servicing and the result of acquisitions which generated $29 million of new revenue in 2003. Treasury Services’ revenue rose 6% on higher trade and commercial payment card revenue and increased balance-related earnings, including higher balance deficiency fees resulting from the lower interest rate environment. Investor Services’ revenue contracted 4%, the result of lower NII due to lower interest rates, coupled with lower foreign exchange and securities lending revenue.

TSS results included a pre-tax gain of $41 million on the sale of a nonstrategic business in 2003, compared with a pre-tax gain of $50 million on the sale of the Firm’s interest in a non-U.S. securities clearing firm in 2002.

Operating expense increased by 7%, attributable to higher severance, the impact of acquisitions, the cost associated with expensing of options, increased pension costs and charges to provide for losses on subletting unoccupied excess real estate. The overhead ratio for TSS was 81%, compared with 77% in 2002.

(BAR CHART)

Operating revenueOperating earnings(in millions)(in millions, except ratios)Return on allocated capital


J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

32


Table of Contents

(PIE CHARTS)

TSS dimensions of 2003 revenue diversification By business revenuesBy client segmentBy geographic region(a) Nonbank financialThe Americas 64% Treasury Services 40% institutions 44% Investor Services 36%Large corporations 21% Europe, Middle East, Banks 11% Institutional Trust Services 23% & Africa 27% Middle market 18% Public sector/governments 6%Asia 9% Other 1% (a) Includes the elimination of revenue related to shared activities with Chase Middle Market in the amount of $347 million.

Corporate credit allocation
In 2003, TSS was assigned a corporate credit allocation of pre-tax earnings and the associated capital related to certain credit exposures managed within IB’s credit portfolio on behalf of clients shared with TSS. Prior periods have been revised to reflect this allocation. For 2003, the impact to TSS of this change increased pre-tax operating results by $36 million and average allocated capital by $712 million, and it decreased SVA by $65 million. Pre-tax operating results were $46 million lower than in 2002, reflecting lower loan volumes and higher related expenses, slightly offset by a decrease in credit costs.

Business outlook
TSS revenue in 2004 is expected to benefit from improved global equity markets and from two recent acquisitions: the November 2003 acquisition of the Bank One corporate trust portfolio, and the January 2004 acquisition of Citigroup’s Electronic Funds Services business. TSS also expects higher costs as it integrates these acquisitions and continues strategic investments to support business expansion.

                         
Year ended December 31,   Operating Revenue
(in millions)   2003     2002     Change  
 
Treasury Services
  $ 1,927     $ 1,818       6 %
Investor Services
    1,449       1,513       (4 )
Institutional Trust Services(a)
    928       864       7  
Other(a)(b)
    (312 )     (303 )     (3 )
 
Total Treasury & Securities Services
  $ 3,992     $ 3,892       3 %
 
(a)  
Includes a portion of the $41 million gain on sale of a nonstrategic business in 2003: $1 million in Institutional Trust Services and $40 million in Other.
(b)  
Includes the elimination of revenues related to shared activities with Chase Middle Market, and a $50 million gain on sale of a non-U.S. securities clearing firm in 2002.


J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

33


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Investment Management & Private Banking

Investment Management & Private Banking provides investment management services to institutional investors, high net worth individuals and retail customers, and it provides personalized advice and solutions to wealthy individuals and families.

Selected financial data

                         
Year ended December 31,                  
(in millions, except ratios                  
and employees)   2003     2002     Change  
 
Operating revenue:
                       
Fees and commissions
  $ 2,207     $ 2,176       1 %
Net interest income
    467       446       5  
All other revenue
    204       217       (6 )
 
                   
Total operating revenue
    2,878       2,839       1  
Operating expense:
                       
Compensation expense
    1,193       1,125       6  
Noncompensation expense
    1,235       1,221       1  
 
                   
Total operating expense
    2,428       2,346       3  
Credit costs
    35       85       (59 )
 
                   
Pre-tax margin
    415       408       2  
Operating earnings
  $ 268     $ 261       3  
 
                   
Shareholder value added:
                       
Operating earnings less preferred dividends
  $ 261     $ 254       3  
Less: cost of capital
    655       677       (3 )
 
                   
Shareholder value added
  $ (394 )   $ (423 )     7  
 
                   
Tangible shareholder value added(a)
  $ 108     $ 84       29
Average allocated capital
    5,454       5,643       (3 )
Average assets
    33,685       35,729       (6 )
 
                       
Return on tangible allocated capital(a)
    20 %     18 %     200 bp
Return on allocated capital
    5       5        
Overhead ratio
    84       83       100  
Pre-tax margin ratio(b)
    14       14        
Full-time equivalent employees
    7,756       7,827       (1 )%
 
(a)  
The Firm uses tangible shareholder value added and return on tangible allocated capital as additional measures of the economics of the IMPB business segment. To derive these measures, the impact of goodwill is excluded.
(b)  
Measures the percentage of operating earnings before taxes to total operating revenue.

Financial results overview

Investment Management & Private Banking (“IMPB”) operating earnings are influenced by numerous factors, including equity, fixed income and other asset valuations; investor flows and activity levels; investment performance; and expense and risk management. Global economic conditions rebounded in 2003, as corporate earnings improved and the credit environment strengthened. During 2003, global equity markets rose (as exemplified by the S&P 500 index, which rose by 26%, and the MSCI World index, which rose by 31%), and investor activity levels increased across IMPB’s retail and private bank client bases,

particularly during the second half of the year. This global equity market recovery, on a year-over-year basis, brought 2003’s average annual market levels broadly back in line with 2002’s average. Investment performance in core institutional products improved with all major asset classes, with U.S. institutional fixed income and equities markets showing above-benchmark results.

IMPB’s operating earnings were 3% higher than in the prior year, reflecting an improved credit portfolio, the benefits of slightly higher revenues and managed expense growth. Quarterly earnings increased sequentially during the year. During the second quarter of 2003, the Firm acquired American Century Retirement Plan Services Inc., a provider of defined contribution recordkeeping services, as part of its strategy to grow its U.S. retail investment management business. The business was renamed JPMorgan Retirement Plan Services (“RPS”). Return on tangible allocated capital was 20%.

(BAR CHARTS)

Operating revenueOperating earnings(in millions)(in millions, except ratios)$400 $4,000$300$358 $3,000 $3,189$268 $2,878$200$261 $2,000$2,839 $1,000$100$00102 0301 02 03 Return on22% 18% 20% tangible allocated capital

Operating revenue of $2.9 billion was 1% higher than in the prior year. The increase was driven by higher Fees and commissions and Net interest income. The growth in Fees and commissions reflected the acquisition of RPS and increased average equity market valuations in client portfolios, partly offset by institutional net outflows. The growth in Net interest income reflected higher brokerage account balances and spreads. The decline in all other revenue primarily reflected nonrecurring items in 2002.

Operating expense increased by 3%, reflecting the acquisition of RPS, higher compensation expense, and real estate and software write-offs, partly offset by the continued impact of expense management programs.

The 59% decrease in credit costs reflected the improvement in the quality of the credit portfolio and recoveries.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

34


Table of Contents

(PIE CHARTS)

IMPB dimensions of 2003 revenue diversification By product By client segment By geographic regionAmericas 63% Banking 18%Retail 28% Asia/Pacific 11%Brokerage 11%Private bank 50%Investment management/ Europe, Middle East, fiduciary 71%Institutional 22% & Africa 26%

Assets under supervision (“AUS”) at December 31, 2003, were $758 billion, an increase of 18% from the prior year-end. Assets under management (“AUM”) increased by 9% to $559 billion, and custody, brokerage, administration and deposit accounts increased by 54% to $199 billion. The increase in AUM was driven by higher average equity market valuations in client portfolios, partly offset by institutional net outflows. Custody, brokerage, administration and deposits grew by $70 billion, driven by the acquisition of RPS ($41 billion), higher average equity market valuations in client portfolios, and net inflows from Private Bank clients. The diversification of AUS across product classes, client segments and geographic regions helped to mitigate the impact of market volatility on revenue. The Firm also has a 44% interest in American Century Companies, Inc., whose AUM totaled $87 billion and $72 billion at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. These amounts are not included in the Firm’s AUM total above.

Business outlook
Looking forward to 2004, IMPB believes it is well positioned for a continued global market recovery. Improved investment performance and the continued execution of the Private Bank and retail investment management strategies are expected to drive operating earnings growth.

Assets under supervision (a)

                         
At December 31, (in billions)   2003     2002     Change  
 
Asset class:
                       
Liquidity
  $ 160     $ 144       11 %
Fixed income
    144       149       (3 )
Equities and other
    255       222       15  
 
                   
Assets under management
    559       515       9  
Custody/brokerage/administration/deposits
    199       129       54  
 
Total assets under supervision
  $ 758     $ 644       18 %
 
Client segment:
                       
Retail
                       
Assets under management
  $ 101     $ 80       26 %
Custody/brokerage/administration/deposits
    71       17       318  
 
                   
Assets under supervision
    172       97       77  
Private Bank
                       
Assets under management
    138       130       6  
Custody/brokerage/administration/deposits
    128       112       14  
 
                   
Assets under supervision
    266       242       10  
Institutional
                       
Assets under management
    320       305       5  
 
Total assets under supervision
  $ 758     $ 644       18 %
 
Geographic region:
                       
Americas
                       
Assets under management
  $ 360     $ 362       (1 )%
Custody/brokerage/administration/deposits
    170       100       70  
 
                   
Assets under supervision
    530       462       15  
Europe, Middle East & Africa and Asia/Pacific
                       
Assets under management
    199       153       30  
Custody/brokerage/administration/deposits
    29       29        
 
                   
Assets under supervision
    228       182       25  
 
Total assets under supervision
  $ 758     $ 644       18 %
 
(a)  
Excludes AUM of American Century Companies, Inc.


J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

35


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

JPMorgan Partners

JPMorgan Partners, the global private equity organization of JPMorgan Chase, provides equity and mezzanine capital financing to private companies. It is a diversified investor, investing in buyouts and in growth equity and venture opportunities across a variety of industry sectors, with the objective of creating long-term value for the Firm and third-party investors.

Selected financial data

                         
Year ended December 31,                  
(in millions, except ratios                  
and employees)   2003     2002     Change  
 
Operating revenue:
                       
Private equity gains (losses):
                       
Direct investments
  $ 346     $ (583 )   $ 929  
Private third-party fund investments
    (319 )     (150 )     (169 )
 
                   
Total private equity gains (losses)
    27       (733 )     760  
Net interest income (loss)
    (264 )     (302 )     38  
Fees and other revenue
    47       59       (12 )
 
                   
Total operating revenue
    (190 )     (976 )     786  
Operating expense:
                       
Compensation expense
    135       128       7  
Noncompensation expense
    140       171       (31 )
 
                   
Total operating expense
    275       299       (24 )
Operating margin
    (465 )     (1,275 )     810  
Operating losses
  $ (293 )   $ (808 )     515  
 
                   
Shareholder value added:
                       
Operating earnings less preferred dividends
  $ (300 )   $ (815 )     515  
Less: cost of capital
    869       944       (75 )
 
                   
Shareholder value added
  $ (1,169 )   $ (1,759 )     590  
 
                   
Average allocated capital
  $ 5,789     $ 6,293       (8 )%
Average assets
    8,818       9,677       (9 )
Full-time equivalent employees
    316       357       (11 )
 

Financial results overview

JPMorgan Partners (“JPMP”) recognized negative operating revenue of $190 million and operating losses of $293 million in 2003. Opportunities to realize value through sales, recapitalizations and initial public offerings (“IPOs”) of investments, although limited, improved during the year as the M&A and IPO markets started to recover.

Private equity gains totaled $27 million in 2003, compared with a loss of $733 million in 2002. JPMP recognized gains of $346 million on direct investments and losses of $319 million on sales and writedowns of private third-party fund investments.

Realized cash gains on direct investments of $535 million increased 18% from the previous year. Realized cash gains were recognized across all industries but were primarily realized from the Industrial and Consumer retail and services sectors. In addition, JPMP recorded unrealized gains of $215 million

from the mark-to-market (“MTM”) value of its public portfolio, primarily in the Healthcare infrastructure, Technology and Telecommunications sectors.

JPMP’s unrealized and realized gains were partially offset by net write-offs (realized losses) and write-downs (unrealized losses) on the direct portfolio of $404 million. These write-downs and write-offs included $239 million from the Technology and Telecommunications sectors.

Private equity gains (losses)

                         
Year ended December 31,                  
(in millions)   2003     2002     Change  
 
Direct investments:
                       
Realized cash gains
  $ 535     $ 452     $ 83  
Write-ups/(write-downs/ write-offs)
    (404 )     (825 )     421  
MTM gains (losses)(a)
    215       (210 )     425  
 
                   
Total direct investments
    346       (583 )     929  
Private third-party fund investments
    (319 )     (150 )     (169 )
 
                   
Total private equity gains (losses)
  $ 27     $ (733 )     760  
 
                   
 
(a)  
Includes mark-to-market gains (losses) and reversals of mark-to-market gains (losses) due to public securities sales.

Investment pace, portfolio diversification and capital under management

In 2003, increased emphasis was placed on leveraged buyouts and growth equity opportunities. JPMP’s direct investments for the Firm’s account in 2003 were $773 million, a 19% decline from the prior year. Approximately 67% of direct investments were in the Industrial, Consumer retail and services, Life sciences and Healthcare infrastructure sectors.

JPMP reduced the size of the portfolio by 12%, largely the result of sales of third-party fund investments, which declined by $744 million.

At December 31, 2003, the carrying value of JPMP’s public securities portfolio was $643 million, a 24% increase from 2002. The increase resulted from higher market valuations and from IPOs of certain portfolio investments, partially offset by ongoing sales activity.

Business outlook
The Firm continues to regard JPMP as a strategic business that will create value over the long term. JPMP is seeking to sell selected investments that are not central to its portfolio strategy, with the goal that, over time, JPMP’s private equity portfolio will represent a lower percentage of the Firm’s common stockholders’ equity.

JPMP’s private equity portfolio and financial performance are sensitive to the level of M&A, IPO and debt financing activity. Improved markets in 2004 could provide increased exit opportunities and improved financial performance.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

36


Table of Contents

JPMP investment portfolio

                                   
      2003   2002
December 31, (in millions)   Carrying value     Cost     Carrying value     Cost  
 
Direct investments:
                               
Public securities (51 companies)(a)(b)
  $ 643     $ 451     $ 520     $ 663  
Private direct securities (822 companies)(b)
    5,508       6,960       5,865       7,316  
Private third-party fund investments (252 funds)(b)(c)
    1,099       1,736       1,843       2,333  
 
Total investment portfolio
  $ 7,250     $ 9,147     $ 8,228     $ 10,312  
 
% of portfolio to the Firm’s common equity(d)
    15 %             20 %        
 
(a)  
The quoted public values were $994 million and $761 million at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
(b)  
Represents the number of companies and funds at December 31, 2003.
(c)  
Unfunded commitments to private equity funds were $1.3 billion and $2.0 billion at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
(d)  
For purposes of calculating this ratio, the carrying value excludes the post–December 31, 2002 impact of public MTM valuation adjustments, and the Firm’s common equity excludes SFAS 115 equity balances.

(PIE CHARTS)

JPMP’s diversified investment portfolio (% of carrying value) Direct investment portfolio byDirect investment portfolio by geographic region at December 31, 2003investment stage at December 31, 2003North America 75%Buyout 41% Europe, Middle East & Africa 17%Growth equity 37%Latin America 5%Asia/Pacific 3%Venture 22%Total investment portfolio by industry at December 31,20032002Real estate 3%Real estate 5%Media 4%Industrial 28%Media 3%Industrial 27% Life sciences 4% Life sciences 2% Healthcare infrastructure 6%Healthcare infrastructure 6% Consumer retailFinancial services 8%Consumer retail Financial services 11% & services 15%& services 12% Technology 10% Technology 9% Funds 15%Funds 22% Telecommunications 5% Telecommunications 5%Industrial includes:Industrial includes:Packaging 6% Packaging 6% General manufacturing 6%General manufacturing 6% Industrial services 5% Industrial services 4% Automotive 3% Distribution 3% Other 8%Other 8%

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

37


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Chase Financial Services

Chase Financial Services is a major provider of banking, investment and financing products and services to consumers and small and middle market businesses throughout the United States. The majority of its revenues and earnings are produced by its national consumer credit businesses, Chase Home Finance, Chase Cardmember Services and Chase Auto Finance. It also serves as a full-service bank for consumers and small- and medium-sized businesses through Chase Regional Banking and Chase Middle Market.

Selected financial data

                         
Year ended December 31,                  
(in millions, except ratios                  
and employees)   2003     2002     Change  
 
Operating revenue:
                       
Net interest income
  $ 9,620     $ 8,225       17 %
Fees and commissions
    3,561       3,489       2  
Securities gains
    382       493       (23 )
Mortgage fees and related income
    892       988       (10 )
All other revenue
    177       231       (23 )
 
                   
Total operating revenue
    14,632       13,426       9  
Operating expense:
                       
Compensation expense
    2,870       2,536       13  
Noncompensation expense
    4,299       3,943       9  
Severance and related costs
    95       99       (4 )
 
                   
Total operating expense
    7,264       6,578       10  
Operating margin
    7,368       6,848       8  
Credit costs
    3,431       3,159       9  
Operating earnings
  $ 2,495     $ 2,320       8  
 
                   
Shareholder value added:
                       
Operating earnings less preferred dividends
  $ 2,484     $ 2,310       8  
Less: cost of capital
    1,050       1,034       2  
 
                   
Shareholder value added
  $ 1,434     $ 1,276       12  
 
                   
Average allocated capital
  $ 8,750     $ 8,612       2  
Average managed loans(a)
    185,761       155,926       19  
Average managed assets(a)
    215,216       179,635       20  
Average deposits
    109,802       97,464       13  
Return on allocated capital
    28 %     27 %     100 bp
Overhead ratio
    50       49       100  
Full-time equivalent employees
    46,155       43,543       6 %
 
(a)  
Includes credit card receivables that have been securitized.

Financial results overview

Chase Financial Services (“CFS”) operating earnings are affected by numerous factors, including U.S. economic conditions, the volatility and level of interest rates, and competition in its various product lines. In response to the continuing low–interest rate environment and competition in the marketplace, in 2003, CFS focused its efforts on growing or maintaining market share in its various businesses, enhancing its online banking capabilities, disciplined expense management and maintaining the credit quality of its loan portfolios. As a result of

these efforts, 2003 CFS operating earnings were a record $2.5 billion, an increase of 8% from 2002. Return on allocated capital was 28%, up from 27% in 2002. Shareholder value added increased by 12%.

Operating revenue was $14.6 billion in 2003, an increase of 9% over 2002. Net interest income increased 17% to $9.6 billion, reflecting the positive impact of the lower interest rate environment on consumer loan originations, particularly in Chase Home Finance (“CHF”), and lower funding costs. The increase was partly offset by reduced spreads on deposits. CHF revenue increased by 38% over the prior year, driven by strong operating revenue (which excludes MSR hedging revenue) and, to a lesser extent, higher MSR hedging revenue. Chase Cardmember Services (“CCS”) revenue increased by 4%, the result of lower funding costs, growth in average receivables and higher interchange fees earned on customer purchases. Chase Auto Finance (“CAF”) revenue grew 23%, driven by record originations of almost $28 billion and lower funding costs. Chase Regional Banking (“CRB”) and Chase Middle Market (“CMM”) revenues decreased 9% and 1%, respectively, as a result of lower deposit spreads from lower interest rates, partly offset by the effect of significantly higher deposit volumes compared with 2002.

Operating expense rose 10% to $7.3 billion. The increase in expense reflects higher business volume and higher compensation costs. Partially offsetting higher expenses were savings achieved through Six Sigma and other productivity efforts. The overhead ratio increased slightly compared with a year ago.

Credit costs on a managed basis (which includes securitized credit cards) of $3.4 billion increased by 9% compared with the prior year. While credit quality remained stable in 2003, net charge-offs increased by 2%. The increase in 2003 net charge-offs was driven by a 19% increase in average managed loans. For a further discussion of the consumer credit portfolio, see Credit Risk on pages 61–62 of this Annual Report.

Chase Online enrollees reached 5.2 million, an increase of more than 50% from year-end 2002. Total online payment transactions increased by 42% to more than 27 million.

(BAR CHARTS)

Operating revenueOperating earnings(in millions)(in millions, except ratios)$2500 $15,000 $2000$2,495 $12,000$13,426$14,632$2,320 $9,000$10,828$1500 $6,000$1000$1,414 $3,000$500$0$00102 0301 02 03 Return on 18% 27% 28% allocated capital


J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

38


Table of Contents

CFS’s online offerings ended the year ranked No. 3 in credit card and No. 6 in banking by Gómez Scorecards™, a service which measures the quality of online financial services offerings. CCS accounts sourced from the Internet channel reached 16% of new account originations and represented 5% of the active account base in 2003. In CRB, several enhancements to consumer online offerings – including check imaging, statement imaging and banking alerts – resulted in significant activation of online capabilities by customers. CHF continued its emphasis on providing online capabilities to its business-to-business partners and increased its direct-to-consumer web usage by more than

100%. In CAF, online application processing reached 95% dealer penetration, while consumer adoption of Chase’s online automobile offerings continued to grow.

Business outlook
In 2004, CFS anticipates operating revenue and earnings will be lower, primarily due to a decrease in production revenue in CHF, as refinancing activity declines from the record levels set in 2003. While CFS expects the other retail businesses to report modest revenue growth and improved efficiencies, this growth may not offset the lower mortgage earnings.



Chase Financial Services’ business results

                                                         
Year ended December 31,   Home   Cardmember   Auto   Regional   Middle   Other    
(in millions)   Finance   Services   Finance   Banking   Market   consumer services(a)   Total
 
2003
                                                       
Operating revenue
  $ 4,030     $ 6,162     $ 842     $ 2,576     $ 1,430     $ (408 )   $ 14,632  
Operating expense
    1,711       2,202       292       2,383       871       (195 )     7,264  
Credit costs
    240       2,904       205       77       7       (2 )     3,431  
Operating earnings
    1,341       679       205       70       324       (124 )     2,495  
 
2002
                                                       
Operating revenue
  $ 2,928     $ 5,939     $ 683     $ 2,828     $ 1,451     $ (403 )   $ 13,426  
Operating expense
    1,341       2,156       248       2,229       841       (237 )     6,578  
Credit costs
    191       2,753       174       (11 )     72       (20 )     3,159  
Operating earnings
    908       662       166       354       315       (85 )     2,320  
 
Change
                                                       
Operating revenue
    38 %     4 %     23 %     (9 )%     (1 )%     (1 )%     9 %
Operating expense
    28       2       18       7       4       18       10  
Credit costs
    26       5       18       NM       (90 )     90       9  
Operating earnings
    48       3       23       (80 )     3       (46 )     8  
 
(a)  
Includes the elimination of revenues and expenses related to the shared activities with Treasury Services, discontinued portfolios, support services and unallocated credit costs.

 

Chase Home Finance

The following table sets forth key revenue components of CHF’s business.

                         
Year ended December 31, (in millions)                  
Operating revenue   2003     2002     Change  
 
Home Finance:
                       
Operating revenue
  $ 3,800     $ 2,751       38 %
MSR hedging revenue:
                       
MSR valuation adjustments
    (785 )     (4,504 )     83  
Hedging gains (losses)
    1,015       4,681       (78 )
 
Total revenue(a)
  $ 4,030     $ 2,928       38 %
 
(a)  
Includes Mortgage fees and related income, Net interest income and Securities gains.

CHF is the fourth largest mortgage originator and servicer in the United States, with more than four million customers. CHF conducts business in all 50 states and has approximately 17,000 employees in more than 300 locations nationwide. CHF offers an extensive array of residential mortgage products delivered across a variety of distribution channels and customer touch points. CHF comprises three key businesses: Production, Servicing and

Portfolio Lending. The Production business originates and sells mortgages. The Servicing business manages accounts for CHF’s four million customers. The Portfolio Lending business holds for investment adjustable-rate first mortgage loans, home equity and manufactured housing loans originated and purchased through the Production channels. These three segments provide CHF with balance to enable it to benefit across varying business cycles. The Production segment is most profitable when mortgage rates are declining and origination volume is high. Alternatively, the Servicing business collects more fees when rates are rising and mortgage prepayments are low. Portfolio Lending provides increasing NII, with growth in home equity and adjustable-rate first mortgage lending. The counter-cyclical (Production/Servicing) and complementary (Portfolio Lending) nature of these businesses, in combination with financial risk management, enabled CHF to produce record earnings.

The residential mortgage market had a record year in 2003, with an estimated $3.8 trillion in industry-wide origination volume. The strong market was driven by historically low interest rates, higher consumer confidence, improved housing affordability and exceptionally strong new and existing home sales. CHF capitalized on this environment, achieving record levels of



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

39


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

loan originations and applications. CHF’s production market share grew from 5.8% in 2002 to 7.6% in 2003, primarily due to successful expansion in first mortgage and home equity lending through growth in strategic, higher-margin distribution channels such as retail, wholesale, telephone-based and e-commerce. Origination volume totaled a record $284 billion, an increase of 82% from 2002. Home Equity volume, a strategic growth area, increased by 71% from the prior year. In addition, despite record levels of loan prepayments in 2003, loans serviced increased by 10% from year-end 2002 to $470 billion at December 31, 2003.

CHF manages and measures its results from two key perspectives: its operating businesses (Production/Servicing and Portfolio Lending) and revenue generated through managing the interest rate risk associated with MSRs. The table below reconciles management’s perspective on CHF’s business results to the reported GAAP line items shown on the Consolidated statement of income and in the related Notes to consolidated financial statements. While the operating and hedging activities are interrelated, the MSR hedging function is a risk management activity subject to significant volatility as market interest rates and yield curves fluctuate. As a result, operating business results are reported separately from hedging results to gain a better perspective on each activity.

                                                 
    Operating basis revenue      
    Operating   MSR hedging   Reported
Year ended December 31,                                                
(in millions)   2003     2002     2003     2002     2003     2002  
 
Net interest income
  $ 2,204     $ 1,208     $ 575     $ 234     $ 2,779     $ 1,442  
Securities gains
                359       498       359       498  
Mortgage fees and related income
    1,596       1,543       (704 )     (555 )     892       988  
 
Total
  $ 3,800     $ 2,751     $ 230     $ 177     $ 4,030     $ 2,928  
 

CHF achieved record financial performance in 2003, as total revenue of $4.0 billion increased by 38% from 2002. Record operating earnings of $1.3 billion increased by 48% from 2002.

CHF’s operating revenue (excluding MSR hedging revenue) of $3.8 billion increased by 38% over 2002. The strong performance was due to record production revenue resulting from market-share growth, record margins and higher home equity revenue. Management expects a decrease in revenue in 2004, as production margins are expected to decline due to lower origination volumes and increased price competition.

In its hedging activities, CHF uses a combination of derivatives and AFS securities to manage changes in the market value of MSRs. The intent is to offset any changes in the market value of MSRs with changes in the market value of the related risk management instrument. During 2003, negative MSR valuation adjustments of $785 million were more than offset by $1.0 billion of aggregate derivative gains, realized gains on sales of AFS securities and net interest earned on AFS securities. Unrealized

gains/(losses) on AFS Securities were $(144) million at December 31, 2003, and $377 million at December 31, 2002. For a further discussion of MSRs, see Critical Accounting Estimates on page 77 and Note 16 on pages 107–109 of this Annual Report.

Operating expense of $1.7 billion increased by 28% from 2002 as a result of growth in origination volume as well as a higher level of mortgage servicing. Substantial portions of CHF’s expenses are variable in nature and, accordingly, fluctuate with the overall level of origination and servicing activity. In addition to increases brought on by higher business volumes, expenses increased due to higher performance-related incentives, as well as strategic investments made to further expand into higher-margin business sectors, along with production-related restructuring efforts initiated in the fourth quarter of 2003. These increases were partially offset by continued gains in productivity and benefits realized from Six Sigma initiatives during 2003.

Credit costs of $240 million for 2003 increased by 26% from 2002 due to a higher provision for credit losses, primarily the result of higher loan balances. Credit quality continued to be strong relative to 2002, as evidenced by a lower net charge-off ratio and 30+ day delinquency rate.

Business-related metrics

                         
As of or for the year ended December 31,                  
(in billions, except ratios)   2003     2002     Change  
 
Origination volume by channel
                       
Retail, wholesale, and correspondent
  $ 201     $ 113       78 %
Correspondent negotiated transactions
    83       43       93  
 
Total
  $ 284     $ 156       82 %
 
Origination volume by product
                       
First mortgage
  $ 260     $ 142       83 %
Home equity
    24       14       71  
 
Total
  $ 284     $ 156       82 %
 
Loans serviced
  $ 470     $ 426       10 %
End-of-period outstandings
    73.7       63.6       16  
Total average loans owned
    74.1       56.2       32  
MSR carrying value
    4.8       3.2       50  
Number of customers (in millions)
    4.1       4.0       2  
30+ day delinquency rate
    1.81 %     3.07 %     (126 )bp
Net charge-off ratio
    0.18       0.25       (7 )
Overhead ratio
    42       46       (400 )
 


J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

40


Table of Contents

Chase Cardmember Services

CCS is the fourth largest U.S. credit card issuer, with $52.3 billion in managed receivables and $89.7 billion in total volume (customer purchases, cash advances and balance transfers). In addition, CCS is the largest U.S. merchant acquirer (an entity that contracts with merchants to facilitate the acceptance of transaction cards), with annual sales volume in excess of $260 billion, through a joint venture with First Data Merchant Services.

CCS’s operating results exclude the impact of credit card securitizations. CCS periodically securitizes a portion of its credit card portfolio by transferring a pool of credit card receivables to a trust, which sells securities to investors. CCS receives fee revenue for continuing to service those receivables and additional revenue from any interest and fees on the receivables in excess of the interest paid to investors, net of credit losses and servicing fees. CCS reports credit costs on a managed or operating basis. Credit costs

on an operating basis are composed of the Provision for credit losses in the Consolidated statement of income (which includes a provision for credit card receivables in the Consolidated balance sheet) as well as the credit costs associated with securitized credit card loans. As the holder of the residual interest in the securitization trust, CCS bears its share of the credit costs for securitized loans. In JPMorgan Chase’s Consolidated financial statements, credit costs associated with securitized credit card loans reduce the noninterest income remitted to the Firm from the securitization trust. This income is reported in Credit card fees, in Fees and commissions, over the life of the securitization.

Securitization does not change CCS’s reported versus operating net income; however, it does affect the classification of items on the Consolidated statement of income. The abbreviated financial information presented below is prepared on a managed basis and includes the effect of securitizations.



                                                 
    2003   2002
Year ended December 31,           Effect of                     Effect of        
(in millions)   Reported     securitizations     Operating     Reported     securitizations     Operating  
 
Revenue
  $ 4,292     $ 1,870     $ 6,162     $ 4,500     $ 1,439     $ 5,939  
Expense
    2,202             2,202       2,156             2,156  
Credit costs
    1,034       1,870       2,904       1,314       1,439       2,753  
Operating earnings
    679             679       662             662  
 
Average loans
    18,514       32,365       50,879       22,565       26,519       49,084  
Average assets
    19,176       32,365       51,541       23,316       26,519       49,835  
 

 

Operating earnings increased by 3% over 2002 to $679 million, driven by higher revenue, partially offset by higher credit costs and expenses. The operating environment reflected continued competitive pricing, a record level of bankruptcy filings and low receivables growth. This was partly the result of mortgage refinancing activity, which permitted consumers to use cash received in their mortgage refinancings to pay down credit card debt. CCS was able to grow earnings and originate a record number of new accounts by offering rewards-based products, improving operating efficiency, delivering high-level customer service and improving retention and card usage. Management believes that the shift towards rewards-based products positions CCS to capture consumer wallet share in a highly competitive, commoditized marketplace. In 2003, CCS launched several new rewards products, including the ChasePerfect card, the Marathon co-branded card and the GM Small Business card.

Operating revenue increased by 4% to $6.2 billion. Net interest income increased by 2%, reflecting lower funding costs, partly offset by a lower yield. The 4% growth in average receivables was in line with industry trends. Noninterest revenue increased by 6%, primarily reflecting higher interchange revenue, partially offset by higher rebate costs. The increase in interchange revenue reflects higher purchase volume due to new account growth and the movement towards higher spending using rewards-based products. During 2003, CCS originated 4.2 million new accounts via multiple distribution channels. CCS continues

to make progress in cross-selling accounts to other CFS customers (13% of new account originations). These multiple-relationship accounts generate more revenue and comprise 11% of the active account base.

Operating expense of $2.2 billion increased by 2%, reflecting disciplined expense management and Six Sigma and productivity efforts. Growth in expenses was primarily due to volume-related costs.

Credit costs were $2.9 billion, an increase of 5% from 2002. The increase in credit costs primarily reflected 4% higher net charge-offs due to an increase in average outstandings. Conservative risk management and rigorous collection practices contributed to CCS’s stable credit quality.

Business-related metrics

                         
As of or for the year ended December 31,                  
(in billions, except ratios)   2003     2002     Change  
 
End-of-period outstandings
  $ 52.3     $ 51.1       2 %
Average outstandings
    50.9       49.1       4  
Total volume (a)
    89.7       84.0       7  
New accounts (in millions)
    4.2       3.7       14  
Active accounts (in millions)
    16.5       16.5        
Total accounts (in millions)
    30.8       29.2       5  
30+ day delinquency rate
    4.68 %     4.67 %     1 bp
Net charge-off ratio
    5.89       5.89        
Overhead ratio
    36       36        
 
(a)  
Sum of total customer purchases, cash advances and balance transfers.


J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

41


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Chase Auto Finance

CAF is the largest U.S. bank originator of automobile loans and leases, with more than 2.9 million accounts. In 2003, CAF had a record number of automobile loan and lease originations, growing by 10% over 2002 to $27.8 billion. Loan and lease receivables of $43.2 billion at December 31, 2003, were 16% higher than at the prior year-end. Despite a challenging operating environment reflecting slightly declining new car sales in 2003 and increased competition, CAF’s market share among automobile finance companies improved to 6.1% in 2003 from 5.7% in 2002. The increase in market share was the result of strong organic growth and an origination strategy that allies the business with manufacturers and dealers. CAF’s relationships with several major car manufacturers contributed to 2003 growth, as did CAF’s dealer relationships, which increased from approximately 12,700 dealers in 2002 to approximately 13,700 dealers in 2003.

In 2003, operating earnings were $205 million, 23% higher compared with 2002. The increase in earnings was driven by continued revenue growth and improved operating efficiency. In 2003, CAF’s operating revenue grew by 23% to $842 million. Net interest income grew by 33% compared with 2002. The increase was driven by strong operating performance due to higher average loans and leases outstanding, reflecting continued strong origination volume and lower funding costs.

Operating expense of $292 million increased by 18% compared with 2002. The increase in expenses was driven by higher average

loans outstanding, higher origination volume and higher performance-based incentives. CAF’s overhead ratio improved from 36% in 2002 to 35% in 2003, as a result of strong revenue growth, continued productivity gains and disciplined expense management.

Credit costs increased 18% to $205 million, primarily reflecting a 32% increase in average loan and lease receivables. Credit quality continued to be strong relative to 2002, as evidenced by a lower net charge-off ratio and 30+ day delinquency rate.

CAF also comprises Chase Education Finance, a top provider of government-guaranteed and private loans for higher education. Loans are provided through a joint venture with Sallie Mae, a government-sponsored enterprise and the leader in funding and servicing education loans. Chase Education Finance’s origination volume totaled $2.7 billion, an increase of 4% from last year.

Business-related metrics

                         
As of or for the year ended December 31,                  
(in billions, except ratios)   2003     2002     Change  
 
Loan and lease receivables
  $ 43.2     $ 37.4       16 %
Average loan and lease receivables
    41.7       31.7       32  
Automobile origination volume
    27.8       25.3       10  
Automobile market share
    6.1 %     5.7 %   40 bp
30+ day delinquency rate
    1.46       1.54       (8 )
Net charge-off ratio
    0.41       0.51       (10 )
Overhead ratio
    35       36       (100 )
 



Chase Regional Banking

CRB is the No. 1 bank in the New York tri-state area and a top five bank in Texas (both ranked by retail deposits), providing payment, liquidity, investment, insurance and credit products and services to three primary customer segments: small business, affluent and retail. Within these segments, CRB serves 326,000 small businesses, 433,000 affluent consumers and 2.6 million mass-market consumers.

CRB’s continued focus on expanding customer relationships resulted in a 14% increase in core deposits (for this purpose, core deposits are total deposits less time deposits) from December 31, 2002, and a 77% increase in the cross-sell of Chase credit products over 2002. In 2003, mortgage and home equity originations through CRB’s distribution channels were $3.4 billion and $4.7 billion, respectively. Branch-originated credit cards totaled 77,000, contributing to 23% of CRB customers holding Chase credit cards. CRB is compensated by CFS’s credit businesses for the home finance and credit card loans it originates and does not retain these balances.

While CRB continues to position itself for growth, decreased deposit spreads related to the low-rate environment and increased credit costs resulted in an 80% decline in CRB operating earnings from 2002. This decrease was partly offset by an 8% increase in total average deposits.

Operating revenue of $2.6 billion decreased by 9% compared with 2002. Net interest income declined by 11% to $1.7 billion, primarily attributable to the lower interest rate environment. Noninterest revenue decreased 6% to $927 million due to lower deposit service fees, decreased debit card fees and one-time gains in 2002. CRB’s revenue does not include funding profits earned on its deposit base; these amounts are included in the results of Global Treasury.

Operating expense of $2.4 billion increased by 7% from 2002. The increase was primarily due to investments in technology within the branch network; also contributing were higher compensation expenses related to increased staff levels and higher severance costs as a result of continued restructuring. This increase in operating



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

42


Table of Contents

expense was partly offset by Six Sigma and other productivity efforts. CRB’s overhead ratio increased to 93% in 2003 from 79% in 2002, reflecting both the decline in revenues and an increase of expenses.

Credit costs of $77 million increased by $88 million compared with 2002 primarily driven by the release of the Allowance for loan losses in 2002.

Business-related metrics

                         
As of or for the year ended December 31,   2003     2002     Change  
 
Total average deposits (in billions)
  $ 75.1     $ 69.8       8 %
Total client assets (a)(in billions)
    108.7       103.6       5  
Number of branches
    529       528        
Number of ATMs
    1,730       1,876       (8 )
Overhead ratio
    93 %     79 %   1,400 bp
 
(a)  
Deposits, money market funds and/or investment assets (including annuities).

(CRB DEPOSIT MIX GRAPH)




Chase Middle Market

CMM is a premier provider of commercial banking and corporate financial services to companies with annual sales of $10 million to $1 billion, as well as to not-for-profit, real estate and public-sector entities. CMM maintains a leadership position in the New York tri-state market and select Texas markets; it also leverages its expertise in distinct industry segments, such as Technology, Corporate mortgage finance, Entertainment and certain regional markets, such as Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston and Denver.

The CMM relationship management model brings customized solutions to more than 12,000 middle market companies, utilizing the products and services of the entire Firm. Products and services include cash management, lines of credit, term loans, structured finance, syndicated lending, M&A advisory, risk management, international banking services, lease financing and asset-based lending. CMM is organized by geography, industry and product to deliver greater value to customers. CMM’s 2003 and 2002 results included 100% of the revenues and expenses attributed to the shared activities with Treasury Services. See Segment results on page 27 of this Annual Report for a discussion of the Firm’s revenue and expense-sharing agreements among business segments.

CMM’s operating earnings of $324 million increased by 3% compared with 2002. Operating revenue of $1.4 billion decreased by 1% compared with the prior year. NII was down 5% due to lower spreads, partly offset by 17% higher deposits

and 3% higher loans compared with 2002. Noninterest revenue increased by 6%, primarily reflecting higher deposit service and corporate finance fees. Deposit service fees increased, as the lower interest rate environment resulted in reduced values of customers’ compensating balances; consequently, customers paid incremental fees for deposit services.

Operating expense was $871 million, an increase of 4% compared with 2002. The increase in expenses was due to higher severance costs and higher performance-based incentives, partly offset by savings from Six Sigma and other productivity initiatives.

Credit costs of $7 million were down 90% from the prior year. This decrease was due to a lower required allowance and 36% lower net charge-offs, reflecting strong credit quality.

The focus for 2004 will be on generating revenue growth through effective cross-selling, the delivery of superior client service and the management of credit quality and expenses.

Business-related metrics

                         
As of or for the year ended December 31,                  
(in billions, except ratios)   2003     2002     Change  
 
Total average loans
  $ 14.1     $ 13.7       3 %
Total average deposits
    28.2       24.1       17  
Nonperforming average loans as a % of total average loans
    1.19 %     1.89 %   (70) bp
Net charge-off ratio
    0.49       0.78       (29 )
Overhead ratio
    61       58       300  
 


J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

43


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Support Units and Corporate

                         
Selected financial data
Year ended December 31,                  
(in millions, except employees)   2003     2002     Change  
 
Operating revenue
  $ (626 )   $ (626 )   $  
Operating expense
    34       (73 )     107  
Credit costs
    124       132       (8 )
 
                   
Pre-tax loss
    (784 )     (685 )     (99 )
Income tax benefit
    828       372       456  
 
                   
Operating earnings (losses)
  $ 44     $ (313 )     357  
 
                   
Average allocated capital
  $ 1,150     $ (1,783 )     2,933  
Average assets
    20,737       21,591       (854 )
Shareholder value added
    78       88       (10 )
Full-time equivalent employees
    9,838       13,023       (3,185 )
 

The Support Units and Corporate sector includes technology, legal, audit, finance, human resources, risk management, real estate management, procurement, executive management and marketing groups within Corporate. The technology and procurement services organizations seek to provide services to the Firm’s businesses that are competitive with comparable third-party providers in terms of price and service quality. These units use the Firm’s global scale and technology to gain efficiencies through consolidation, standardization, vendor management and outsourcing.

Support Units and Corporate reflects the application of the Firm’s management accounting policies at the corporate level. These policies allocate the costs associated with technology, operational and staff support services to the business segments, with the intent to recover all expenditures associated with these services. Other items are retained within Support Units and Corporate based on policy decisions, such as the over/under allocation of economic capital, the residual component of credit costs and taxes. Business segment revenues are reported on a tax-equivalent basis, with the offset reflected in Support Units and Corporate.

During 2003, the Firm reviewed its management accounting policies, which resulted in the realignment of certain revenues and expenses from the Corporate segment to other business segments. The policy refinements ranged from updating expense-allocation methodologies to revising transfer pricing policies to more clearly reflect the actual interest income and expense of the Firm. The impact of these changes was allocated among the business segments; prior periods have been revised to reflect the current methodologies.

For 2003, Support Units and Corporate had operating earnings of $44 million, compared with an operating loss of $313 million in 2002, driven primarily by income tax benefits not allocated to the business segments.

In allocating the allowance (and provision) for credit losses, each business is responsible for its credit costs. Although the Support Units and Corporate sector has no traditional credit assets, the residual component of the allowance, which is available for losses in any business segment, is maintained at the corporate level. For a further discussion of the residual component, see Allowance for credit losses on pages 64-65 of this Annual Report.

Average allocated capital was $2.9 billion higher than 2002, reflecting a reduction in risks and economic capital allocated to the business segments.

In December 2002, JPMorgan Chase entered into a seven-year agreement with IBM to outsource portions of the Firm’s internal technology infrastructure services. Commencing April 1, 2003, 2,800 employees were transferred to IBM in connection with this agreement. The agreement is expected to transform the Firm’s technology infrastructure through increased cost variability, access to the best research and innovation, and improved service levels. By moving from a traditional fixed-cost approach to one with increased capacity and cost variability, the Firm expects to be able to respond more quickly to changing market conditions.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

44


Table of Contents

Risk and Capital management

Risk management at JPMorgan Chase is guided by several principles, including:

 
defined risk governance

 
independent oversight

 
continual evaluation of risk appetite, managed through risk limits

 
portfolio diversification

 
risk assessment and measurement, including value-at-risk analysis and portfolio stress testing

 
performance measurement (SVA) that allocates risk-adjusted capital to business units and charges a cost against that capital.

Risk management and oversight begins with the Risk Policy Committee of the Board of Directors, which reviews the governance of these activities, delegating the formulation of policy and day-to-day risk oversight and management to the Office of the Chairman and to two corporate risk committees: the Capital Committee and Risk Management Committee.

The Capital Committee, chaired by the Chief Financial Officer, focuses on Firm-wide capital planning, internal capital allocation and liquidity management. The Risk Management Committee,

chaired by the Chief Risk Officer, focuses on credit risk, market risk, operational risk, business risk, private equity risk and fiduciary risk. Both risk committees have decision-making authority, with major policy decisions and risk exposures subject to review by the Office of the Chairman.

In addition to the Risk Policy Committee, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors is responsible for oversight of guidelines and policies to govern the process by which risk assessment and management is undertaken. In addition, the Audit Committee reviews with management the system of internal controls and financial reporting that is relied upon to provide reasonable assurance of compliance with the Firm’s operational risk management processes.

The Firm’s use of SVA, which incorporates a risk-adjusted capital methodology as its primary performance measure, has strengthened its risk management discipline by charging the businesses the cost of capital linked to the risks associated with their respective activities.

For a discussion of capital allocation methodologies, see the respective risk management sections on pages 46–74 of this Annual Report.



(BORAD OF DIRECTORS CHART)

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

45


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Capital and Liquidity management

Capital management

JPMorgan Chase’s capital management framework helps to optimize the use of capital by:

 
Determining the amount of capital commensurate with:

  -  
internal assessments of risk as estimated by the Firm’s economic capital allocation model
 
  -  
the Firm’s goal to limit losses, even under stress conditions
 
  -  
targeted regulatory ratios and credit ratings
 
  -  
the Firm’s liquidity management strategy.

 
Directing capital investment to activities with the most favorable risk-adjusted returns.

Available versus required capital

                 
    Yearly Averages
(in billions)   2003     2002  
 
Common stockholders’ equity
  $ 43.0     $ 41.4  
Economic risk capital:
               
Credit risk
    13.1       14.0  
Market risk
    4.5       4.7  
Operational risk
    3.5       3.5  
Business risk
    1.7       1.8  
Private equity risk
    5.4       5.8  
 
           
Economic risk capital
    28.2       29.8  
 
           
Goodwill / Intangibles
    8.9       8.8  
Asset capital tax
    4.1       3.9  
 
           
Capital against nonrisk factors
    13.0       12.7  
 
           
Total capital allocated to business activities
    41.2       42.5  
Diversification effect
    (5.1 )     (5.3 )
 
           
Total required internal capital
    36.1       37.2  
 
           
Firm capital in excess of required capital
  $ 6.9     $ 4.2  
 
           
 

Economic risk capital: JPMorgan Chase assesses capital adequacy utilizing internal risk assessment methodologies. The Firm assigns economic capital based primarily on five risk factors: credit risk, market risk, operational risk and business risk for each business, and private equity risk, principally for JPMP. The methodologies quantify these risks and assign capital accordingly. These methodologies are discussed in the risk management sections of this Annual Report.

A review of the Firm’s risk and capital measurement methodologies was completed in 2003, resulting in the reallocation of capital among the risk categories and certain business segments. The new capital measurement methodologies did not result in a significant change in the total capital allocated to the business segments as a whole. Prior periods have been adjusted to reflect the revised capital measurement methodologies. For a further discussion of these new methodologies, see Capital allocation for credit risk, operational risk and business risk, and private equity risk on pages 52, 73 and 74, respectively, of this Annual Report. Internal capital allocation methodologies may change in the future to reflect refinements of economic capital methodologies.

Capital also is assessed against business units for certain nonrisk factors. Businesses are assessed capital equal to 100% of any goodwill and 50% for certain other intangibles generated through acquisitions. Additionally, JPMorgan Chase assesses an “asset capital tax” against managed assets and some off-balance sheet instruments. These assessments recognize that certain minimum regulatory capital ratios must be maintained by the Firm. JPMorgan Chase also estimates the portfolio effect on required economic capital based on correlations of risk across risk categories. This estimated diversification benefit leads to a reduction in required economic capital for the Firm.

The total required economic capital for JPMorgan Chase as determined by its models and after considering the Firm’s estimated diversification benefits is then compared with available common stockholders’ equity to evaluate overall capital utilization. The Firm’s policy is to maintain an appropriate level of excess capital to provide for growth and additional protection against losses.

The Firm’s capital in excess of that which is internally required as of December 31, 2003, increased by $2.7 billion over December 31, 2002. The change was primarily due to an increase in average common stockholders’ equity of $1.6 billion and to a $1.3 billion reduction in average capital allocated to business activities, principally in relation to credit risk and private equity risk. Credit risk capital decreased by $0.9 billion from the prior year, primarily due to a reduction in commercial exposures, improvement in the credit quality of the commercial portfolio and an increase in hedging of commercial exposures using single-name credit derivatives. Private equity risk decreased primarily as a result of the reduction in JPMP’s private equity portfolio.

Regulatory capital: JPMorgan Chase’s primary federal banking regulator, the Federal Reserve Board, establishes capital requirements, including well-capitalized standards and leverage ratios, for the consolidated financial holding company and its state-chartered banks, including JPMorgan Chase Bank. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency establishes similar capital requirements and standards for the Firm’s national bank subsidiaries, including Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. As of December 31, 2003, the financial holding company and its banking subsidiaries maintained capital levels well in excess of the minimum capital requirements.

At December 31, 2003, the Tier 1 and Total capital ratios were 8.5% and 11.8%, respectively, and the Tier 1 leverage ratio was 5.6%. The Capital Committee reviews the Firm’s capital levels and policies regularly in light of changing economic conditions and business needs. At December 31, 2003, Total capital of JPMorgan Chase (the sum of Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital) was $59.8 billion, an increase of $5.3 billion from December 31, 2002. This increase reflected a $5.6 billion increase in Tier 1 capital, primarily driven by a $3.8 billion increase in retained earnings (net income less common and preferred dividends) generated during the period, $1.1 billion in Tier 1 trust preferred net issuance and $1.3 billion in net stock issuances related to employee stock-based benefit plans. This increase was partially offset by a higher deduction for goodwill and nonqualifying



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

46


Table of Contents

intangible assets primarily due to an acquisition in the fourth quarter of 2003. There was minimal impact to the Firm’s Tier 1 and Total capital ratios due to the adoption of FIN 46, as the Federal Reserve Board provided interim regulatory capital relief related to asset-backed commercial paper conduits and trust preferred vehicles. The effect of FIN 46 on the Firm’s leverage ratio at December 31, 2003, was a reduction of approximately 13 basis points as no regulatory capital relief was provided for leverage calculations. The Firm revised its calculation of risk-weighted assets during the third quarter of 2003; capital ratios for periods ended prior to June 30, 2003, have not been recalculated. Additional information regarding the Firm’s capital ratios and a more detailed discussion of federal regulatory capital standards are presented in Note 26 on pages 114-115 of this Annual Report.

Stock repurchases: The Firm did not repurchase any shares of its common stock during 2003. Management expects to recommend to the Board of Directors that the Firm resume its share repurchase program after the completion of the pending merger with Bank One.

Dividends: Dividends declared in any quarter are determined by JPMorgan Chase’s Board of Directors. The dividend is currently $0.34 per share per quarter.

Liquidity management

In managing liquidity, management considers a variety of liquidity risk measures as well as market conditions, prevailing interest rates, liquidity needs and the desired maturity profile of its liabilities.

Overview

Liquidity risk arises from the general funding needs of the Firm’s activities and in the management of its assets and liabilities. JPMorgan Chase recognizes the importance of sound liquidity management as a key factor in maintaining strong credit ratings and utilizes a liquidity framework intended to maximize liquidity access and minimize funding costs. Through active liquidity management, the Firm seeks to ensure that it will be able to replace maturing obligations when due and fund its assets at appropriate maturities and rates in all market environments.

Liquidity management framework

The Capital Committee sets the overall liquidity policy for the Firm, reviews the contingency funding plan and recommends balance sheet targets for the Firm. The Liquidity Risk Committee, reporting to the Capital Committee, identifies and monitors liquidity issues, provides policy guidance and maintains an evolving contingency plan. The Balance Sheet Committee, which also reports to the Capital Committee, identifies and monitors key balance sheet issues, provides policy guidance and oversees adherence to policy.

JPMorgan Chase utilizes liquidity monitoring tools to help maintain appropriate levels of liquidity through normal and stress periods. The Firm’s liquidity analytics rely on management’s judgment about JPMorgan Chase’s ability to liquidate assets or use them as collateral for borrowings. These analytics also involve estimates and assumptions, taking into account credit risk management’s historical data on the funding of loan commitments (e.g., commercial paper back-up facilities), liquidity commitments to SPEs, commitments with rating triggers and collateral posting requirements. For further discussion of SPEs and other off-balance sheet arrangements, see Off-balance sheet arrangements and contractual cash obligations on pages 49-50 as well as Note 1, Note 13 and Note 14 on pages 86-87, 100-103 and 103-106, respectively, of this Annual Report.

The Firm’s three primary measures of liquidity are:

 
Holding company short-term surplus: Measures the parent holding company’s ability to repay all obligations with a maturity under one year at a time when the ability of the Firm’s banks to pay dividends to the parent holding company is constrained.

 
Cash capital surplus: Measures the Firm’s ability to fund assets on a fully collateralized basis, assuming access to unsecured funding is lost.

 
Basic surplus: Measures JPMorgan Chase Bank’s ability to sustain a 90-day stress event that is specific to the Firm where no new funding can be raised to meet obligations as they come due.

Each of the Firm’s liquidity surplus positions, as of December 31, 2003, indicates that JPMorgan Chase’s long-dated funding, including core deposits, exceeds illiquid assets and that the Firm’s obligations can be met if access to funding is temporarily impaired.

An extension of the Firm’s ongoing liquidity management is its contingency funding plan, which is intended to help the Firm manage through liquidity stress periods. The plan considers temporary and long-term stress scenarios and forecasts potential funding needs when access to unsecured funding is severely limited or nonexistent. These scenarios take into account both on-and off-balance sheet exposures, evaluating access to funds by the parent holding company, JPMorgan Chase Bank and Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., separately.

Funding

Credit ratings: The cost and availability of unsecured financing are influenced by credit ratings. A reduction in these ratings could adversely affect the Firm’s access to liquidity sources, and could increase the cost of funding or trigger additional collateral requirements. Critical factors in maintaining high credit ratings include: a stable and diverse earnings stream; strong capital ratios; strong credit quality and risk management controls; diverse funding sources; and strong liquidity monitoring procedures.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

47


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

The credit ratings of JPMorgan Chase’s parent holding company and JPMorgan Chase Bank as of December 31, 2003, were as follows:

                                 
    JPMorgan Chase   JPMorgan Chase Bank
    Short-term   Senior   Short-term   Senior
    debt   long-term debt   debt   long-term debt
 
Moody’s
     P-1       A1       P-1       Aa3  
 
S&P
    A-1       A+       A-1+       AA-  
 
Fitch
    F1       A+       F1       A+  
 

Upon the announcement of the proposed merger with Bank One, Moody’s and Fitch placed the ratings of the Firm under review for possible upgrade, while S&P affirmed the Firm’s ratings.

Balance sheet: The Firm’s total assets increased to $771 billion at December 31, 2003, from $759 billion at December 31, 2002. The December 31, 2003, balance sheet includes the effect of adopting FIN 46, which added $10 billion to total assets, including $5.8 billion in commercial loans primarily associated with multi-seller asset-backed commercial paper conduits. Commercial loans declined $14.2 billion, excluding the impact of adopting FIN 46, as a result of weaker loan demand, as well as the Firm’s ongoing efforts to reduce commercial exposure. Consumer loans increased $11.6 billion, led by strong growth in mortgage and automobile loans, driven by the favorable rate environment throughout 2003. Credit card loans declined modestly, affected by increased securitization activity and higher levels of payments from cash redeployed from consumer mortgage refinancings. The securities portfolio declined due to changes in positioning related to structural interest rate risk management. The continued growth in deposits contributed to the decline in securities sold under repurchase agreements.

Sources of funds: The diversity of the Firm’s funding sources enhances financial flexibility and limits dependence on any one source, thereby minimizing the cost of funds. JPMorgan Chase has access to funding markets across the globe and across a broad investor base. Liquidity is generated using a variety of both short-term and long-term instruments, including deposits, federal funds purchased, repurchase agreements, commercial paper, bank notes, medium- and long-term debt, capital securities and stockholders’ equity. A major source of liquidity for JPMorgan Chase Bank is provided by its large core deposit base. For this purpose, core deposits include all U.S. domestic deposits insured by the FDIC, up to the legal limit of $100,000 per depositor. In addition to core deposits, the Firm benefits from substantial, stable deposit balances originated by TSS through the normal course of its business.

Additional funding flexibility is provided by the Firm’s ability to access the repurchase and asset securitization markets. These alternatives are evaluated on an ongoing basis to achieve the appropriate balance of secured and unsecured funding. The ability to securitize loans, and the associated gains on those securitizations, are principally dependent on the credit quality and yields of the assets securitized and are generally not dependent on the

credit ratings of the issuing entity. Transactions between the Firm and its securitization structures are reflected in JPMorgan Chase’s financial statements; these relationships include retained interests in securitization trusts, liquidity facilities and derivative transactions. For further details, see Notes 13 and 14 on pages 100-103 and 103-106, respectively, of this Annual Report.

Issuance: Corporate credit spreads narrowed in 2003 across industries and sectors, reflecting the market perception that credit risks were improving sharply throughout the year, as the number of downgrades declined, corporate balance sheet cash positions increased, and corporate profits exceeded expectations. JPMorgan Chase’s credit spreads outperformed relative to peer spreads following the Enron settlement, reflecting reduced headline risk and improved earnings performance. This resulted in a positive overall shift in fixed income investor sentiment toward JPMorgan Chase, as evidenced by increased investor participation in debt transactions and extension of debt maturities. The Firm took advantage of its narrowing credit spreads by issuing long-term debt and capital securities opportunistically throughout the year.

During 2003, JPMorgan Chase issued approximately $17.2 billion of long-term debt and capital securities. During the year, $8.3 billion of long-term debt and capital securities matured or was redeemed. In addition, in 2003 the Firm securitized approximately $13.3 billion of residential mortgage loans, $8.8 billion of credit card loans and $4.5 billion of automobile loans, resulting in pre-tax gains on securitizations of $168 million, $44 million and $13 million, respectively. For a further discussion of loan securitizations, see Note 13 on pages 100-103 of this Annual Report.

During 2003, the Firm adopted FIN 46 and, as a result, deconsolidated the trusts that issue trust preferred securities. This could have significant implications for the Firm’s capital, because it may change the way the Federal Reserve Board views the Tier 1 status of trust preferred securities. On July 2, 2003, the Federal Reserve Board issued a supervisory letter instructing banks and bank holding companies to continue to include trust preferred securities in Tier 1 capital. Based on the terms of this letter and in consultation with the Federal Reserve Board, the Firm continues to include its trust preferred securities in Tier 1 capital. However, there can be no assurance that the Federal Reserve Board will continue to permit trust preferred securities to count as Tier 1 capital in the future. For a further discussion, see Note 18 on pages 110-111 of this Annual Report.

Derivatives are used in liquidity risk management and funding to achieve the Firm’s desired interest rate risk profile. The Firm enters into derivatives contracts to swap fixed-rate debt to floating-rate obligations and to swap floating-rate debt to fixed-rate obligations. Derivatives contracts are also used to hedge the variability in interest rates that arises from other floating-rate financial instruments and forecasted transactions, such as the rollover of short-term assets and liabilities.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

48


Table of Contents

Off-balance sheet arrangements and contractual cash obligations

Special-purpose entities

Special-purpose entities (“SPEs”), special-purpose vehicles (“SPVs”), or variable-interest entities (“VIEs”), are an important part of the financial markets, providing market liquidity by facilitating investors’ access to specific portfolios of assets and risks. SPEs are not operating entities; typically they are established for a single, discrete purpose, have a limited life and have no employees. The basic SPE structure involves a company selling assets to the SPE. The SPE funds the asset purchase by selling securities to investors. To insulate investors from creditors of other entities, including the seller of the assets, SPEs are often structured to be bankruptcy-remote. SPEs are critical to the functioning of many investor markets, including, for example, the market for mortgage-backed securities, other asset-backed securities and commercial paper. JPMorgan Chase is involved with SPEs in three broad categories of transactions: loan securitizations (through “qualifying” SPEs), multi-seller conduits, and client intermediation. Capital is held, as appropriate, against all SPE-related transactions and related exposures such as derivative transactions and lending-related commitments.

The Firm has no commitments to issue its own stock to support any SPE transaction, and its policies require that transactions with SPEs be conducted at arm’s length and reflect market pricing. Consistent with this policy, no JPMorgan Chase employee is permitted to invest in SPEs with which the Firm is involved where such investment would violate the Firm’s Worldwide Rules of Conduct. These rules prohibit employees from self-dealing and prohibit employees from acting on behalf of the Firm in transactions with which they or their family have any significant financial interest.

For certain liquidity commitments to SPEs, the Firm could be required to provide funding if the credit rating of JPMorgan Chase Bank were downgraded below specific levels, primarily P-1, A-1 and F1 for Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch, respectively. The amount of these liquidity commitments was $34.0 billion at December 31, 2003. If JPMorgan Chase Bank were required to provide funding under these commitments, the Firm could be replaced as liquidity provider. Additionally, with respect to the multi-seller conduits and structured commercial loan vehicles for which JPMorgan Chase Bank has extended liquidity commitments, the Bank could facilitate the sale or refinancing of the assets in the SPE in order to provide liquidity.

Of these liquidity commitments to SPEs, $27.7 billion is included in the Firm’s total Other unfunded commitments to extend credit included in the table on the following page. As a result of the consolidation of multi-seller conduits in accordance with FIN 46, $6.3 billion of these commitments are excluded from the table, as the underlying assets of the SPE have been included on the Firm’s Consolidated balance sheet.

The following table summarizes certain revenue information related to VIEs with which the Firm has significant involvement, and qualifying SPEs:

                         
Year ended December 31, 2003   “Qualifying”
(in millions)   VIEs (a)   SPEs     Total  
 
Revenue
  $ 79     $ 979     $ 1,058  
 
(a)  
Includes consolidated and nonconsolidated asset-backed commercial paper conduits for a consistent presentation of 2003 results.

The revenue reported in the table above represents primarily servicing fee income. The Firm also has exposure to certain VIE vehicles arising from derivative transactions with VIEs; these transactions are recorded at fair value on the Firm’s Consolidated balance sheet with changes in fair value (i.e., mark-to-market gains and losses) recorded in Trading revenue. Such MTM gains and losses are not included in the revenue amounts reported in the table above.

For a further discussion of SPEs and the Firm’s accounting for SPEs, see Note 1 on pages 86-87, Note 13 on pages 100-103, and Note 14 on pages 103-106 of this Annual Report.

Contractual cash obligations

In the normal course of business, the Firm enters into various contractual obligations that may require future cash payments. Contractual obligations at December 31, 2003, include Long-term debt, trust preferred capital securities, operating leases, contractual purchases and capital expenditures and certain Other liabilities. For a further discussion regarding Long-term debt and trust preferred capital securities, see Note 18 on pages 109-111 of this Annual Report. For a further discussion regarding operating leases, see Note 27 on page 115 of this Annual Report.

The accompanying table summarizes JPMorgan Chase’s off-balance sheet lending-related financial instruments and significant contractual cash obligations, by remaining maturity, at December 31, 2003. Contractual purchases include commitments for future cash expenditures, primarily for services and contracts involving certain forward purchases of securities and commodities. Capital expenditures primarily represent future cash payments for real estate-related obligations and equipment. Contractual purchases and capital expenditures at December 31, 2003, reflect the minimum contractual obligation under legally enforceable contracts with contract terms that are both fixed and determinable. Excluded from the following table are a number of obligations to be settled in cash, primarily in under one year. These obligations are reflected on the Firm’s Consolidated balance sheet and include Deposits; Federal funds purchased and securities sold under repurchase agreements; Other borrowed funds; purchases of Debt and equity instruments that settle within standard market timeframes (e.g. regular-way); Derivative payables that do not require physical delivery of the underlying instrument; and certain purchases of instruments that resulted in settlement failures.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

49


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
                                         
Off-balance sheet lending-related
financial instruments
  Under     1-3     4-5     After        
By remaining maturity at December 31, 2003 (in millions)   1 year     years     years     5 years     Total  
 
Consumer-related
  $ 151,931     $ 504     $ 620     $ 23,868     $ 176,923  
Commercial-related:
                                       
Other unfunded commitments to extend credit(a)(b)
    92,840       54,797       23,573       5,012       176,222  
Standby letters of credit and guarantees(a)
    17,236       12,225       4,451       1,420       35,332  
Other letters of credit(a)
    1,613       458       2,094       39       4,204  
 
Total commercial-related
    111,689       67,480       30,118       6,471       215,758  
 
Total lending-related commitments
  $ 263,620     $ 67,984     $ 30,738     $ 30,339     $ 392,681  
 
                               
                               
Contractual cash obligations
                                       
By remaining maturity at December 31, 2003 (in millions)                              
 
Long-term debt
  $ 6,633     $ 15,187     $ 12,548     $ 13,646     $ 48,014  
Trust preferred capital securities
                      6,768       6,768  
FIN 46 long-term beneficial interests(c)
    17       726       34       1,652       2,429  
Operating leases(d)
    805       1,467       1,189       4,772       8,233  
Contractual purchases and capital expenditures
    11,920       298       120       69       12,407  
Other liabilities(e)
    428       163       286       4,069 (f)     4,946  
 
Total
  $ 19,803     $ 17,841     $ 14,177     $ 30,976     $ 82,797  
 
   
(a)  
Net of risk participations totaling $16.5 billion at December 31, 2003.
(b)  
Includes unused advised lines of credit totaling $19 billion at December 31, 2003, which are not legally binding. In regulatory filings with the Federal Reserve Board, unused advised lines are not reportable.
(c)  
Included on the Consolidated balance sheet in Beneficial interests issued by consolidated variable interest entities.
(d)  
Excludes benefit of noncancelable sublease rentals of $283 million at December 31, 2003.
(e)  
Includes deferred annuity contracts and expected funding for pension and other postretirement benefits for 2004. Funding requirements for pension and postretirement benefits after 2004 are excluded due to the significant variability in the assumptions required to project the timing of future cash payments.
(f)  
Certain deferred compensation obligations amounting to $3.5 billion are reported in the “After 5 years” column because the actual payment date cannot be specifically determined due to the significant variability in the assumptions required to project the timing of future cash payments.

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

50


Table of Contents

Credit risk management

Credit risk is the risk of loss from obligor or counterparty default. The Firm is exposed to credit risk through its lending (e.g., loans and lending-related commitments), trading and capital markets activities. Credit risk management practices are designed to preserve the independence and integrity of the risk-assessment process. Processes in place are intended to ensure that credit risks are adequately assessed, properly approved, continually monitored and actively managed. Risk is managed at both the individual transaction and portfolio levels. The Firm

assesses and manages all credit exposures, whether they arise from transactions recorded on- or off–balance sheet.

Credit risk organization

In early 2003, the Credit Risk Policy and Global Credit Management functions were combined to form Global Credit Risk Management consisting of the five primary functions listed in the organizational chart below.



(CREDIT RISK ORGANIZATION FLOW CHART)

Credit risk organization Chief Risk Officer Oversees risk management Global Credit Risk Management Chief Credit Risk Officer Commercial            Consumer Credit Risk Credit            Policy and            Special Credits            CFS Consumer Management Portfolio Group            Strategy Group            Group            Credit Risk Management
• Approves all credit expo- • Actively manages the • Formulates credit policies, • Actively manages • Approves and sure; approval authority risk in the Firm’s credit            limits, allowance appropri- criticized commercial            monitors credit risk varies based on aggregate positions from traditional            ateness and guidelines            exposures in workouts
• Monitors external economic size of client’s credit lending and derivative            and restructurings
• Independently audits, trends to predict emerging exposure and the size, trading activities, through monitors and assesses            risks in the consumer maturity and risk level the purchase or sale of risk ratings and risk            portfolio of a transaction credit derivative hedges, management processes other market instruments • Formulates credit policies,
• Assigns risk ratings and secondary market • Addresses country risk, limits, allowance appropri-
• Collaborates with client loan sales            counterparty risk and            ateness and guidelines executives to monitor            capital allocation method- credit quality via ongoing • Manages derivatives ologies with Market Risk and periodic reviews collateral risk Management of client documentation, financial data and industry trends

Business strategy and risk management

Commercial

The Firm’s business strategy for its large corporate commercial portfolio remains primarily one of origination for distribution. The majority of the Firm’s wholesale loan originations in IB continue to be distributed into the marketplace, with residual holds by the Firm averaging less than 10%. The commercial loan port-

folio declined by 9% in 2003, reflecting a combination of continued weak loan demand, the Firm’s ongoing goal of reducing commercial credit concentrations and refinancings into more liquid capital markets. The Firm’s SVA discipline discourages the retention of loan assets that do not generate a positive return above the cost of risk-adjusted capital. SVA remains a critical discipline in making loans and commitments, particularly when combined with other credit and capital management disciplines.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

51


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

To measure commercial credit risk, the Firm estimates the likelihood of obligor or counterparty default; the amount of exposure should the obligor or the counterparty default; and the loss severity given a default event. Based on these factors and related market-based inputs, the Firm estimates both expected and unexpected losses for each segment of the portfolio. Expected losses are statistically-based estimates of credit losses over time, anticipated as a result of obligor or counterparty default. They are used to set risk-adjusted credit loss provisions. However, expected credit losses are not the sole indicators of risk. If losses were entirely predictable, the expected loss rate could be factored into pricing and covered as a normal and recurring cost of doing business. Unexpected losses represent the potential volatility of actual losses relative to the expected level of losses and are the basis for the Firm’s credit risk capital-allocation process.

In 2003, the Firm significantly modified its approach to commercial credit risk management to further enhance risk management discipline, improve returns and liquidity and use capital more efficiently. Three primary initiatives were launched during the year: improved single-name and industry concentration management, through a revised threshold and limit structure; a revised capital methodology; and increased portfolio management activity utilizing credit derivatives and loan sales. The Firm manages capital and exposure concentrations by obligor, risk rating, industry and geography. The Firm has reduced by one-half the number of clients whose credit exposure exceeded the narrowest definition of concentration limits during 2003, through focused client planning and portfolio management activities.

A comprehensive review of the Firm’s wholesale credit risk management infrastructure was completed in 2003. As a result, the Firm has commenced a multi-year initiative to reengineer specific components of the credit risk infrastructure, including creation of a simpler infrastructure with more standardized hardware and software platforms. The goal of the initiative is to enhance the Firm’s ability to provide immediate and accurate risk and exposure information; actively manage credit risk in the residual portfolio; support client relationships; manage more quickly the allocation of economic capital; and support compliance with Basel II initiatives.

Consumer

Consumer credit risks are monitored at the aggregate CFS level and within each line of business (mortgages, credit cards, automobile finance, small business and consumer banking). Consumer credit risk management uses sophisticated portfolio modeling, credit scoring and decision-support tools to project credit risks and establish underwriting standards. Risk parameters are established in the early stages of product development, and the cost of credit risk is an integral part of product pricing and evaluating profit dynamics. Losses generated by consumer loans are more predictable than for commercial loans, but are subject to cyclical and seasonal factors. The frequency of loss is higher on consumer loans than on corporate loans but the severity of losses is typically lower and more manageable, depending on whether loans are secured or not. In addition, common measures of credit quality derived from historical loss experience can be used to predict con-

sumer losses. Likewise, underwriting principles and philosophies are common among lenders focusing on borrowers of similar credit quality. For these reasons, Consumer Credit Risk Management focuses on trends and concentrations at the portfolio level, where problems can be remedied through changes in underwriting policies and adherence to portfolio guidelines. Consumer Credit Risk Management also monitors key risk attributes, including borrower credit quality, loan performance (as measured by delinquency) and losses (expected versus actual). The monthly and quarterly analysis of trends around these attributes is monitored against business expectations and industry benchmarks.

Capital allocation for credit risk

Unexpected credit losses drive the allocation of credit risk capital by portfolio segment.

In the commercial portfolio, capital allocations are differentiated by risk rating, loss severity, maturity, correlations and assumed exposure at default. In 2003, the Firm revised its methodology for the assessment of credit risk capital allocated to the commercial credit portfolio, more closely aligning capital with current market conditions. Specifically, the new approach employs estimates of default likelihood that are derived from current market parameters and is intended to capture the impact of both defaults and declines in market value due to credit deterioration. This approach is intended to reflect more accurately current risk conditions, as well as to enhance the management of commercial credit risk by encouraging the utilization of the growing market in credit derivatives and secondary market loan sales. See the Capital management section on pages 46–47 of this Annual Report.

Within the consumer businesses, capital allocations are differentiated by product and product segment. For the consumer portfolio, consumer products are placed into categories with homogenous credit characteristics, from which default rates and charge-offs can be estimated. Credit risk capital is allocated based on the unexpected loss inherent in those categories.

Commercial and consumer credit portfolio

JPMorgan Chase’s total credit exposure (which includes $34.9 billion of securitized credit cards) was $730.9 billion at December 31, 2003, a 2% increase from year-end 2002. The increase reflected a change in the portfolio’s composition: a $41.5 billion increase in consumer exposure, partially offset by a $30.2 billion decrease in commercial exposure.

Managed consumer loans increased by $15.7 billion, primarily resulting from higher levels of residential mortgage and automobile originations, while lending-related commitments increased by $25.8 billion, primarily in the home finance and credit card businesses.

Commercial exposure decreased by 7% to $382.7 billion as of year-end 2003, the result of an $8.5 billion decrease in loans and a $22.4 billion decrease in lending-related commitments. The decrease in loans outstanding reflected weaker demand, as well as the Firm’s ongoing credit management activities, including $5.2 billion in loan and commitment sales. This was partially offset



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

52


Table of Contents

by a $5.8 billion increase related to VIEs consolidated in accordance with FIN 46. The decrease in lending-related commitments was due to an overall contraction in lending demand and reflected a $6.3 billion decline due to the adoption of FIN 46. For further discussion of FIN 46, see Note 14 on pages 103–106 of this Annual Report.

The Firm also views its credit exposure on an “Economic” basis, which is the basis upon which it allocates credit capital to the lines of business. The principal difference between the Firm’s credit exposure on a reported basis and Economic credit exposure relates to the way the Firm views its credit exposure to derivative receivables and lending-related commitments.

For derivative receivables, the Firm measures its Economic credit exposure using the Average exposure (“AVG”) metric. This is a measure of the expected MTM value of the Firm’s derivative receivables at future time periods, including the benefit of collateral. The three-year average of the AVG metric is the Firm’s Economic measure of derivative risk since three years is the average remaining life of the derivatives portfolio; it was $34 billion as of December 31, 2003. For more information, see the Derivative contracts section of this Annual Report.

The following table reconciles Derivative receivables on a MTM basis with the Firm’s Economic credit exposure basis, a non-GAAP financial measure.

Reconciliation of Derivative Receivables to Economic
Credit Exposure

                 
As of December 31, (in billions)   2003     2002  
 
Derivative receivables:
               
Derivative receivables MTM
  $ 84     $ 83  
Collateral held against derivatives
    (36 )     (30 )
 
           
Derivative receivables – net current exposure
    48       53  
Reduction in exposure to 3-year average exposure
    (14 )     (19 )
 
           
Economic credit exposure
  $ 34     $ 34  
 
           
 

For commercial lending-related commitments, the Firm measures its Economic credit exposure using a “loan equivalent” amount for each commitment, rather than the contractual amount of the lending-related commitment. The contractual amount represents the maximum possible credit risk should the counterparty draw down the commitment and subsequently default. However, most of these commitments expire without a default occurring or without being drawn. As a result, the total contractual amount of these instruments is not, in the Firm’s view, representative of the Firm’s actual future credit exposure or funding requirements. In determining the Firm’s Economic credit exposure to commercial lending-related commitments, the Firm has established a “loan-equivalent” amount for each commitment. The loan-equivalent amount represents the portion of the unused commitment or other contingent exposure that is likely, based on average portfolio historical experience, to become outstanding in the event of a default by the obligor. It is this amount that, in management’s view, represents the Firm’s Economic credit exposure to the obligor. The aggregate amount of its Economic credit exposure associated with commercial lending-related commitments was $106.9 billion in 2003, compared with $115.5 billion in 2002.

The following table reconciles commercial lending–related commitments on a GAAP basis with the Firm’s Economic credit exposure basis, a non-GAAP financial measure.

Reconciliation of Commercial Lending-Related Commitments to
Economic Credit Exposure

                 
As of December 31, (in billions)   2003     2002  
 
Commercial lending-related commitments:
               
Reported amount
  $ 216     $ 238  
Loan equivalent (“LEQ”) adjustment
    (109 )     (123 )
 
           
Economic credit exposure
  $ 107     $ 115  
 
           
 


J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

53


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

The following table presents JPMorgan Chase’s credit portfolio as of December 31, 2003 and 2002:

Commercial and consumer credit portfolio

                                                 
                                    Approximate period-end
As of December 31,   Credit exposure   Economic credit exposure   allocated credit capital
(in millions)   2003     2002     2003     2002     2003     2002  
 
COMMERCIAL
                                               
Loans (a)(b)
  $ 83,097 (i)   $ 91,548     $ 83,097     $ 91,548                  
Derivative receivables (b)
    83,751       83,102       34,130       34,189                  
Other receivables
    108       108       108       108                  
 
Total commercial credit-related assets
    166,956       174,758       117,335       125,845                  
Lending-related commitments (a)(c)
    215,758 (j)     238,120       106,872       115,495                  
 
Total commercial credit exposure
  $ 382,714     $ 412,878     $ 224,207     $ 241,340     $ 8,200     $ 13,300  
 
CONSUMER
                                               
Loans – reported (a)(d)
  $ 136,421     $ 124,816     $ 136,421     $ 124,816                  
Loans securitized (d)(e)
    34,856       30,722       34,856       30,722                  
 
Total managed consumer loans
    171,277       155,538       171,277       155,538                  
Lending-related commitments (f)
    176,923       151,138       176,923       151,138                  
 
Total consumer credit exposure
  $ 348,200     $ 306,676     $ 348,200     $ 306,676     $ 3,400     $ 3,300  
 
TOTAL CREDIT PORTFOLIO
                                               
Managed loans
  $ 254,374     $ 247,086     $ 254,374     $ 247,086                  
Derivative receivables
    83,751       83,102       34,130       34,189                  
Other receivables
    108       108       108       108                  
 
Total managed credit-related assets
    338,233       330,296       288,612       281,383                  
Total lending-related commitments
    392,681       389,258       283,795       266,633                  
 
Total credit portfolio
  $ 730,914     $ 719,554     $ 572,407     $ 548,016     $ 11,600     $ 16,600  
 
Credit derivative hedges notional (g)
  $ (37,282 )   $ (33,767 )   $ (37,282 )   $ (33,767 )   $ (1,300 )   $ (1,200 )
Collateral held against derivative receivables (h)
    (36,214 )     (30,410 )     NA       NA                  
 
(a)  
Amounts are presented gross of the allowance for credit losses.
(b)  
Loans are presented gross of collateral held. Derivative receivables Credit exposure is presented gross of collateral held.
(c)  
Includes unused advised lines of credit totaling $19 billion at December 31, 2003, and $22 billion at December 31, 2002, which are not legally binding. In regulatory filings with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, unused advised lines are not reportable.
(d)  
At December 31, 2003, credit card securitizations included $1.1 billion of accrued interest and fees on securitized credit card loans that were classified in Other assets, consistent with the FASB Staff Position, Accounting for Accrued Interest Receivable Related to Securitized and Sold Receivables under SFAS 140. Prior to March 31, 2003, this balance was classified in credit card loans.
(e)  
Represents securitized credit cards. For a further discussion of credit card securitizations, see page 41 of this Annual Report.
(f)  
Credit exposure and Economic credit exposure to consumer lending–related commitments are presented on the same basis; in the Firm’s view, this is a conservative measure as it represents the Firm’s maximum exposure.
(g)  
Represents hedges of commercial credit exposure that do not qualify for hedge accounting under SFAS 133.
(h)  
On an Economic credit exposure basis, collateral is considered “NA,” as it is already accounted for in Derivative receivables.
(i)  
Includes $5.8 billion of exposure related to consolidated VIEs in accordance with FIN 46, of which $4.8 billion is associated with multi-seller asset-backed commercial paper conduits.
(j)  
Total commitments related to asset-backed commercial paper conduits consolidated in accordance with FIN 46 are $9.8 billion, of which $3.5 billion is included in Lending-related commitments. The remaining $6.3 billion of commitments to these VIEs is excluded, as the underlying assets of the vehicles are reported as follows: $4.8 billion in Loans and $1.5 billion in Available-for-sale securities.

As of December 31, 2003, total Economic credit exposure was $572.4 billion, compared with $548.0 billion as of year-end 2002. Economic credit exposure for 2003 was $572.4 billion compared with 2003 credit exposure of $730.9 billion.

The Firm’s allocated credit capital (including the benefit from credit derivative hedges) decreased significantly during 2003, to $10.3 billion at December 31, 2003, from $15.4 billion at year-end 2002. The $5.1 billion decrease was related to lower exposure in the commercial portfolio, hedging and loan sale activities, and significantly improved credit quality in the loan portfolio.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

54


Table of Contents

Commercial credit portfolio

The following table summarizes the maturity and ratings profiles of the commercial portfolio as of December 31, 2003 and 2002. The ratings scale is based on the Firm’s internal risk ratings, and is presented on an S&P–equivalent basis.

At December 31, 2003, 83% of the total commercial credit exposure of $383 billion was considered investment-grade, an improvement from 80% at year-end 2002. There was improvement across all components of credit exposure, most significantly

in loans, as commercial criticized exposure declined by 47%, while the total commercial loan balance declined by 9%.

Under the Firm’s Economic view of credit exposure, the portion of the portfolio that was deemed investment-grade improved to 80% as of December 31, 2003, from 74% at year-end 2002. In addition to the improved credit quality of loans and lending-related commitments, the investment-grade component of Derivative receivables improved to 91% at year-end 2003 from 85% at the end of 2002.



Commercial exposure

                                                                                                 
    Maturity profile(a)   Ratings profile
                                                                                            Total % of IG-  
                                    Investment-grade ("IG")   Noninvestment-grade                   Economic  
As of December 31, 2003                                   AAA     A+     BBB+     BB+     CCC+             Total %     credit  
(in billions, except ratios)   <1 year   1–5 years   > 5 years   Total   to AA-     to A-     to BBB-     to B-     & below     Total     of IG     exposure  
     
Loans (b)
    49 %     37 %     14 %     100 %   $ 20     $ 13     $ 21     $ 23     $ 6     $ 83       65 %     65 %
Derivative receivables
    20       41       39       100       47       15       12       9       1       84       88       91  
Lending-related commitments (c)(d)
    52       45       3       100       80       57       52       25       2       216       88       88  
     
Total exposure (e)
    44 %     43 %     13 %     100     $ 147     $ 85     $ 85     $ 57     $ 9     $ 383       83 %     80 %
     
Credit derivative hedges notional (f)
    16 %     74 %     10 %     100 %   $ (10 )   $ (12 )   $ (12 )   $ (2 )   $ (1 )   $ (37 )     92 %     92 %
     
                                                                                                 
                                                                                            Total % of IG-  
                                    Investment-grade ("IG")   Noninvestment-grade                   Economic  
As of December 31, 2002                                   AAA     A+     BBB+     BB+     CCC+             Total %     credit  
(in billions, except ratios)   <1 year   1–5 years   > 5 years   Total   to AA-     to A-     to BBB-     to B-     & below     Total     of IG     exposure  
     
Loans
    45 %     39 %     16 %     100 %   $ 18     $ 10     $ 23     $ 30     $ 11     $ 92       55 %     55 %
Derivative receivables
    29       40       31       100       42       16       14       9       2       83       87       85  
Lending-related commitments
    62       34       4       100       82       80       46       26       4       238       87       86  
     
Total exposure
    52 %     36 %     12 %     100 %   $ 142     $ 106     $ 83     $ 65     $ 17     $ 413       80 %     74 %
     
Credit derivative hedges notional (f)
    39 %     55 %     6 %     100 %   $ (9 )   $ (10 )   $ (10 )   $ (4 )   $ (1 )   $ (34 )     85 %     85 %
     
(a)  
The maturity profile of loans and lending-related commitments is based upon remaining contractual maturity. The maturity profile of derivative receivables is based upon the maturity profile of Average exposure. See page 59 of this Annual Report for a further discussion.
(b)  
Includes $5.8 billion of exposure related to consolidated VIEs in accordance with FIN 46, of which $4.8 billion is associated with multi-seller asset-backed commercial paper conduits. Excluding the impact of FIN 46, the total percentage of investment-grade would have been 62%.
(c)  
Based on Economic credit exposure, the maturity profile for the <1 year, 1–5 years and >5 years would have been 38%, 58% and 4%, respectively. See page 53 of this Annual Report for a further discussion of Economic credit exposure.
(d)  
Total commitments related to asset-backed commercial paper conduits consolidated in accordance with FIN 46 are $9.8 billion, of which $3.5 billion is included in Lending-related commitments. The remaining $6.3 billion of commitments to these VIEs is excluded, as the underlying assets of the vehicles are reported as follows: $4.8 billion in Loans and $1.5 billion in Available-for-sale securities.
(e)  
Based on Economic credit exposure, the maturity profile for <1 year, 1–5 years and >5 years would have been 36%, 46% and 18%, respectively. See page 53 of this Annual Report for a further discussion.
(f)  
Ratings are based on the underlying referenced assets.

Commercial exposure – selected industry concentrations

During 2003, the Firm undertook a thorough analysis of industry risk correlations. As a result, the Firm developed a new industry structure, intended to provide stronger linkages between exposures with common risk attributes. The Firm expects these changes to enhance its ability to manage industry risks consistently across regions and lines of business. The implementation

of the new industry structure resulted in shifts in credit exposure, with increases in some industries due to consolidation and decreases in others as a result of realignments. In managing industry risk, the Firm recognizes customers that have multiple industry affiliations in each industry category. However, the following table ranks exposures only by a customer’s primary industry affiliation to prevent double counting.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

55


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

The industry distribution of the Firm’s commercial credit exposure (loans, derivative receivables and lending-related commitments) under the new industry structure, as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, was as follows:

                                                                         
                                                                    Collateral  
            Ratings profile of credit exposure                           held  
                    Noninvestment-grade                   Credit     against  
As of December 31, 2003   Credit   Investment-           Criticized   Criticized   Net           derivative     derivative  
(in millions, except ratios)   exposure(a)   grade   Noncriticized   performing   nonperforming(b)   charge-offs(c)           hedges(d)     receivables  
             
Top 10 industries
                                                                       
Commercial banks
  $ 47,063       96 %   $ 1,786     $ 8     $ 20     $ 9             $ (10,231 )   $ (24,740 )
Asset managers
    21,794       82       3,899       76       13       14               (245 )     (1,133 )
Securities firms and exchanges
    15,599       83       2,582       9       13       4               (1,369 )     (4,168 )
Finance companies and lessors
    15,589       94       846       99       3       6               (2,307 )     (82 )
Utilities
    15,296       82       1,714       415       583       129               (1,960 )     (176 )
Real estate
    14,544       70       4,058       232       49       29               (718 )     (182 )
State and municipal governments
    14,354       100       36       14       1                     (405 )     (12 )
Media
    14,075       65       3,285       1,307       358       151               (1,678 )     (186 )
Consumer products
    13,774       71       3,628       313       103       6               (1,104 )     (122 )
Insurance
    12,756       95       550       83                           (2,149 )     (854 )
Other selected industries
                                                                       
Telecom services
    10,924       75       2,204       340       227       127               (2,941 )     (402 )
Automotive
    7,268       76       1,536       150       82       14               (2,313 )      
All other
    179,678       80       31,658       3,441       918       327               (9,862 )     (4,157 )
             
Total
  $ 382,714       83 %   $ 57,782     $ 6,487     $ 2,370     $ 816             $ (37,282 )   $ (36,214 )
             
                                                                         
                                                                    Collateral  
            Ratings profile of credit exposure                           held  
                    Noninvestment-grade                   Credit     against  
As of December 31, 2002   Credit   Investment-           Criticized   Criticized   Net           derivative     derivative  
(in millions, except ratios)   exposure (a)   grade   Noncriticized   performing   nonperforming(b)   charge-offs(c)           hedges(d)     receivables  
             
Top 10 industries(e)
                                                                       
Commercial banks
  $ 42,247       95 %   $ 2,188     $ 2     $ 44     $ 43             $ (8,370 )   $ (18,212 )
Asset managers
    24,867       78       5,328       172       52       11               (276 )     (1,153 )
Securities firms and exchanges
    17,512       90       1,667       16             3               (551 )     (3,680 )
Finance companies and lessors
    18,977       93       1,220       99       15       1               (2,322 )     (133 )
Utilities
    17,717       72       2,096       2,146       746       170               (2,708 )     (33 )
Real estate
    11,614       63       3,611       633       71       87               (692 )     (115 )
State and municipal governments
    11,973       99       106                                 (1,273 )     (8 )
Media
    17,566       58       4,680       1,918       701       161               (1,178 )     (611 )
Consumer products
    12,376       72       3,157       223       70       29               (1,179 )     (85 )
Insurance
    14,800       92       768       220       258       18               (2,478 )     (778 )
Other selected industries
                                                                       
Telecom services
    15,604       59       5,077       687       706       759               (436 )      
Automotive
    8,192       71       2,055       298       22       (2 )             (1,148 )      
All other
    199,433       80       33,028       6,095       1,384       813               (11,156 )     (5,602 )
             
Total
  $ 412,878       80 %   $ 64,981     $ 12,509     $ 4,069     $ 2,093             $ (33,767 )   $ (30,410 )
             
(a)  
Credit exposure is net of risk participations, and excludes the benefit of credit derivative hedges and collateral held against derivative receivables or loans.
(b)  
Nonperforming assets exclude nonaccrual loans held for sale (“HFS”) of $52 million and $18 million at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. HFS loans are carried at the lower of cost or market, and declines in value are recorded in Other revenue.
(c)  
Represents net charge-offs on loans and lending-related commitments. Amounts in parentheses represent net recoveries.
(d)  
Represents notional amounts only; these hedges do not qualify for hedge accounting under SFAS 133.
(e)  
Based on the 2003 determination of Top 10 industries.

Selected industry discussion

Presented below is a discussion of several industries to which the Firm has significant exposure and which it continues to monitor because of actual or potential credit concerns.

 
Commercial banks: The industry represents the largest segment of the Firm’s commercial credit exposure, and 96% of the credit exposure is rated investment-grade. Collateral held against $33.3 billion in derivative receivables is valued at $24.7 billion.


J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

56


Table of Contents

 
Utilities: The Firm significantly reduced its credit exposure to this segment over the last twelve months, from $17.7 billion to $15.3 billion, a 14% decline. This reduction was achieved by significant refinancing activity in nonbank capital markets, restructurings in the industry and a decline in client demand for lending activity. Criticized credit exposures, primarily related to U.S. customers, were reduced by 65%, to $998 million. Utilities became a top-10 industry as a result of the new industry structure, which consolidated several related sectors.
 
 
Media: Total credit exposure declined by 20% to $14.1 billion. The quality of the portfolio was enhanced by a reduction in criticized exposures, primarily in the European cable sector, which increased the proportion of investment-grade exposures from 58% to 65% of the portfolio. Overall, criticized exposures were reduced by 36%, to $1.7 billion. Media became a top-10 industry as a result of the new industry structure, which consolidated several related sectors.
 
 
Telecom services: In 2003, the telecommunications industry worldwide improved its financial picture significantly after severe capital and liquidity constraints in 2002. Overall, credit exposures declined by 30% to $10.9 billion during the year; 75% of the credit exposure is considered investment-grade compared with 59% in 2002. Criticized exposures were reduced by 59% during the year, the result of capital markets refinancings, other restructurings and acquisitions of weaker market participants by stronger companies.
 
 
Automotive: In 2003, automotive companies accessed nonbank capital markets, reducing the Firm’s credit exposure by $924 million. While total credit exposure to this industry is significant, more than half of the exposure is undrawn. At December 31, 2003, 76% of this portfolio was rated investment-grade, an increase from 2002.
 
 
All other: All other at December 31, 2003 included $180 billion of credit exposure to 21 industry segments. Exposures related to special-purpose entities and high net worth individuals totaled 38% of this category. Special-purpose entities provide secured financing (generally backed by receivables, loans or bonds) originated by companies in a diverse group of industries which are not highly correlated. The remaining All other exposure is well diversified across other industries, none of which comprise more than 3% of total exposure.

Commercial criticized exposure

Exposures deemed criticized generally represent a ratings profile similar to a rating of CCC+/Caa1 and lower, as defined by Standard & Poor’s/Moody’s. As of year-end 2003, the total $8.9 billion in criticized exposure represented 2% of total commercial credit exposure and was down $7.7 billion, or 47%, from December 31, 2002. The significant decrease was due to improved economic conditions, restructurings and capital markets refinancings during the year, in particular in the Telecom services, Media and Utilities industries.

(COMMERCIAL CRITICIZED EXPOSURE TRENDS BAR CHART)

Commercial criticized exposure trends(a) (in billions) Chemicals/plastics Telecom services            All other Metals/mining            Media Technology            Utilities $16.6 $1.2 $15 $14.6 $1.2 $0.9 $1.4 $12.8 $1.0 $0.8 $1.4 $11.3 $2.6 $0.9 $0.7 $1.2 $0.8 $10 $2.5 $8.9 $0.9 $2.9 $2.6 $0.6 $2.0 $2.5 $0.6 $0.6 $1.3 $1.7 $1.2 $5 $1.0 $7.3 $6.8 $6.0 $5.2 $4.4 $0 12/31/02 3/31/03 6/30/03 9/30/03 12/31/03 (a) Industries shown represent the top five by criticized exposure at the period indicated.

The top five industries shown above total 50% of the total commercial criticized exposure at December 31, 2003. No industry below the top five is larger than 5% of the total.

(INDUSRTY CONCENTRATIONS PIE CHART)

Criticized exposure — industry concentrations December 31, 2003 Machinery & Consumer products 5% equipment mfg. 5% Airlines 4% Emerging markets 3% Retail 3% Metal/mining 3% Real estate 3% Top 5 50% Under 3% 24%

Enron-related exposure

The Firm’s exposure to Enron and Enron-related entities was reduced by 11% during the year, from $688 million at December 31, 2002, to $609 million at December 31, 2003. The reduction was primarily due to the maturation of $50 million of debtor-in-possession financing and repayments on secured exposures. At December 31, 2003, secured exposure of $270 million is performing and is reported on an amortized cost basis.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

57


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Country exposure

The Firm has a comprehensive process for measuring and managing its country exposures and risk. Exposures to a country include all credit-related lending, trading and investment activities, whether cross-border or locally funded. In addition to monitoring country exposures, the Firm uses stress tests to measure and manage the risk of extreme loss associated with sovereign crises.

The table below presents the Firm’s exposure to selected countries. The selection of countries is based on the materiality of the Firm’s exposure and its view of actual or potentially adverse credit conditions. Exposure amounts are adjusted for credit enhancements (e.g., guarantees and letters of credit) provided by third parties located outside the country if the enhancements fully cover the country risk, as well as the commercial risk. In

addition, the benefit of collateral, credit derivative hedges and other short credit or equity trading positions are reflected. Total exposure includes exposure to both government and private-sector entities in a country.

The slight decrease in exposure to Brazil over the prior year-end was due to reductions in loans. The decline in Mexican exposure when compared with the prior year was primarily due to loan maturities and reductions in counterparty exposure on derivatives. The reduction in South Korea was due to a combination of loan maturities and trading activities. Hong Kong’s exposure declined due to lower counterparty exposure on derivatives. The increase in Russian exposure was due to cross-border and local trading positions and short-term lending.



Selected country exposure

                                                         
                                                    At December 31,  
    At December 31, 2003   2002  
    Cross-border                   Total     total  
(in billions)   Lending (a)     Trading (b)     Other (c)     Total     Local (d)     exposure     exposure  
 
Brazil
  $ 0.2     $ 0.4     $ 0.6     $ 1.2     $ 0.8     $ 2.0     $ 2.1  
Mexico
    0.6       0.5       0.2       1.3       0.2       1.5       2.2  
 
South Korea
    0.6       0.4       0.3       1.3       0.9       2.2       2.7  
Hong Kong
    0.7       0.1       0.9       1.7             1.7       2.2  
 
Russia
    0.1       0.5             0.6       0.1       0.7       0.5  
 
(a)  
Lending includes loans and accrued interest receivable, interest-bearing deposits with banks, acceptances, other monetary assets, issued letters of credit and undrawn commitments to extend credit.
(b)  
Trading includes (1) issuer exposure on cross-border debt and equity instruments, held in both trading and investment accounts, adjusted for the impact of issuer hedges, including credit derivatives; and (2) counterparty exposure on derivative and foreign exchange contracts as well as security financing trades (resale agreements and securities borrowed).
(c)  
Other represents mainly local exposure funded cross-border.
(d)  
Local exposure is defined as exposure to a country denominated in local currency, booked and funded locally.

 

Derivative contracts

In the normal course of business, the Firm utilizes derivative instruments to meet the needs of customers, to generate revenues through trading activities, to manage exposure to fluctuations in interest rates, currencies and other markets and to manage its own credit risk. The Firm uses the same credit risk management procedures to assess and approve potential credit

exposures when entering into derivative transactions as those used for traditional lending.

The following table summarizes the aggregate notional amounts and the reported derivative receivables (i.e., the MTM or fair value of derivative contracts after taking into account the effects of legally enforceable master netting agreements) at each of the dates indicated:



Notional amounts and derivative receivables MTM

                                 
    Notional amounts (a)   Derivative receivables MTM
As of December 31, (in billions)   2003     2002     2003     2002  
 
Interest rate contracts
  $ 31,252     $ 23,591     $ 60     $ 55  
Foreign exchange contracts
    1,582       1,505       10       7  
Equity
    328       307       9       13  
Credit derivatives
    578       366       3       6  
Commodity
    24       36       2       2  
 
Total notional and credit exposure
    33,764       25,805       84       83  
Collateral held against derivative receivables
  NA     NA       (36 )     (30 )
 
Exposure net of collateral
  $ 33,764     $ 25,805     $ 48     $ 53  
 
(a)  
The notional amounts represent the gross sum of long and short third-party notional derivative contracts, excluding written options and foreign exchange spot contracts.

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

58


Table of Contents

The $34 trillion of notional principal of the Firm’s derivative contracts outstanding at December 31, 2003, significantly exceeds the possible credit losses that could arise from such transactions. For most derivative transactions, the notional principal amount does not change hands; it is simply used as a reference to calculate payments. In terms of current credit risk exposure, the appropriate measure of risk is the MTM value of the contract. The MTM exposure represents the cost to replace the contracts at current market rates should the counterparty default. When JPMorgan Chase has more than one transaction outstanding with a counterparty, and a legally enforceable master netting agreement exists with the counterparty, the MTM exposure, less collateral held, represents, in the Firm’s view, the appropriate measure of current credit risk with that counterparty as of the reporting date. At December 31, 2003, the MTM value of derivative receivables (after taking into account the effects of legally enforceable master netting agreements) was $84 billion. Further, after taking into account $36 billion of collateral held by the Firm, the net current MTM credit exposure was $48 billion.

While useful as a current view of credit exposure, the net MTM value of the derivative receivables does not capture the potential future variability of that credit exposure. To capture the potential future variability of credit exposure, the Firm calculates, on a client-by-client basis, three measures of potential derivatives-related credit loss: Peak, Derivative Risk Equivalent (“DRE”) and Average exposure (“AVG”). This last measure is used as the basis for the Firm’s Economic credit exposure as defined on page 53 of this Annual Report. These measures all incorporate netting and collateral benefits where applicable.

Peak exposure to a counterparty is an extreme measure of exposure calculated at a 97.5% confidence level. However, the total potential future credit risk embedded in the Firm’s derivatives portfolio is not the simple sum of all Peak client credit risks. This is because, at the portfolio level, credit risk is reduced by the fact that when offsetting transactions are done with separate counterparties, only one of the two trades can generate a credit loss even if both counterparties were to default simultaneously. The Firm refers to this effect as market diversification, and the Market-Diversified Peak (“MDP”) measure is a portfolio aggregation of counterparty Peak measures, representing the maximum losses at the 97.5% confidence level that would occur if all counterparties defaulted under any one given market scenario and timeframe.

Derivative Risk Equivalent exposure is a measure that expresses the riskiness of derivative exposure on a basis intended to be equivalent to the riskiness of loan exposures. This is done by equating the unexpected loss in a derivative counterparty exposure (which takes into consideration both the loss volatility and the credit rating of the counterparty) with the unexpected loss in a loan exposure (which takes into consideration only the credit rating of the counterparty). DRE is a less extreme measure of the potential credit loss than Peak, and is the primary measure used by the Firm for credit approval of derivative transactions.

Finally, as described on page 53 of this Annual Report, Average exposure is a measure of the expected MTM value of the Firm’s derivative receivables at future time periods. The three-year average of the AVG is the basis of the Firm’s Economic credit exposure, while AVG exposure over the total life of the derivative contract is used as the primary metric for pricing purposes and is used to calculate credit capital and the Credit Valuation Adjustment (“CVA”).

The chart below shows the exposure profiles to derivatives over the next 10 years as calculated by the MDP, DRE and AVG metrics. All three measures generally show declining exposure after the first year, if no new trades were added to the portfolio.

(EXPOSURE PROFILE OF DERIVATIVES CHART)

The MTM value of the Firm’s derivative receivables incorporates an adjustment to reflect the credit quality of counterparties. This is called CVA and was $635 million as of December 31, 2003, compared with $1.3 billion at December 31, 2002. The CVA is based on the Firm’s AVG to a counterparty, and on the counterparty’s credit spread in the credit derivatives market. The primary components of changes in CVA are credit spreads, new deal activity or unwinds, and changes in the underlying market environment. The CVA decrease in 2003 was primarily due to the dramatic reduction in credit spreads during the year. For a discussion of the impact of CVA on Trading revenue, see portfolio management activity on pages 60-61 of this Annual Report.

The Firm believes that active risk management is essential to controlling the dynamic credit risk in the derivatives portfolio. The Firm hedges its exposure to changes in CVA by entering into credit derivative transactions, as well as interest rate, foreign exchange, equity and commodity derivatives transactions.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

59


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

The table below summarizes the ratings profile, as of December 31, 2003, of the Firm’s balance sheet derivative receivables MTM, net of cash and other highly liquid collateral:

Ratings profile of derivative receivables MTM

                 
Rating equivalent   Exposure net     % of exposure  
(in millions)   of collateral (a)     net of collateral  
 
AAA to AA-
  $ 24,697       52 %
A+ to A-
    7,677       16  
BBB+ to BBB-
    7,564       16  
 
BB+ to B-
    6,777       14  
CCC+ and below
    822       2  
 
Total
  $ 47,537       100 %
 
(a)  
Total derivative receivables exposure and collateral held by the Firm against this exposure were $84 billion and $36 billion, respectively. The $36 billion excludes $8 billion of collateral delivered by clients at the initiation of transactions; this collateral secures exposure that could arise in the existing portfolio of derivatives should the MTM of the clients’ transactions move in the Firm’s favor. The $36 billion also excludes credit enhancements in the form of letters of credit and surety receivables.

The Firm actively pursues the use of collateral agreements to mitigate counterparty credit risk in derivatives. The percentage of the Firm’s derivatives transactions subject to collateral agreements increased to 78% on December 31, 2003, from 67% on December 31, 2002. The increase of collateralized transactions was driven largely by new collateral agreements. The Firm held $36 billion of collateral as of December 31, 2003, compared with $30 billion as of December 31, 2002. The Firm posted $27 billion of collateral at year-end 2003, compared with $19 billion at the end of 2002.

Certain derivative and collateral agreements include provisions that require both the Firm and the counterparty, upon specified downgrades in their respective credit ratings, to post collateral for the benefit of the other party. The impact on required collateral of a single-notch ratings downgrade to JPMorgan Chase Bank, from its current rating of AA- to A+, would have been an additional $1.3 billion of collateral as of December 31, 2003. The impact of a six-notch ratings downgrade to JPMorgan Chase Bank (from AA- to BBB-) would have been $3.7 billion of additional collateral from levels as of December 31, 2003. The amount of additional collateral required upon downgrade moves in tandem with the mark-to-market value of the derivatives portfolio and ranged (with respect to a six-notch downgrade) from $3.4 billion to $4.2 billion throughout 2003, as the level of U.S. interest rates changed. Certain derivatives contracts also provide for termination of the contract, generally upon JPMorgan Chase Bank being downgraded, at the then-existing MTM value of the derivative receivables.

Use of credit derivatives

The following table presents the notional amounts of credit derivatives protection bought and sold at December 31, 2003 and 2002:

Credit derivative positions

                                         
    Portfolio management   Dealer/Client      
    Notional amount   Notional amount      
December 31,   Protection     Protection     Protection     Protection        
(in millions)   bought (a)     sold     bought     sold     Total  
 
2003
  $ 37,349     $ 67     $ 264,389     $ 275,888     $ 577,693  
2002
  $ 34,262     $ 495     $ 158,794     $ 172,494     $ 366,045  
 
(a)  
Includes $2.2 billion and $10.1 billion at 2003 and 2002, respectively, of portfolio credit derivatives.

JPMorgan Chase has limited counterparty exposure as a result of credit derivatives transactions. Of the $84 billion of total derivative receivables at December 31, 2003, approximately $3 billion, or 4%, was associated with credit derivatives, before the benefit of collateral. The use of credit derivatives to manage exposures does not reduce the reported level of assets on the balance sheet or the level of reported off–balance sheet commitments.

Portfolio management activity

In managing its commercial credit exposure, the Firm purchases single-name and portfolio credit derivatives to hedge its exposures. As of December 31, 2003, the notional outstanding amount of protection purchased via single-name and portfolio credit derivatives was $35 billion and $2 billion, respectively. The Firm also diversifies its exposures by providing (i.e., selling) small amounts of credit protection, which increases exposure to industries or clients where the Firm has little or no client-related exposure. This activity is not material to the Firm’s overall credit exposure; credit protection sold totaled $67 million in notional exposure at December 31, 2003.

Use of single-name and portfolio credit derivatives

                 
  Notional amount of protection bought  
December 31, (in millions)   2003     2002  
 
Credit derivative hedges of:
               
Loans and lending-related commitments
  $ 22,471     $ 25,222  
Derivative receivables
    14,878       9,040  
 
Total
  $ 37,349     $ 34,262  
 

The credit derivatives used by JPMorgan Chase for its portfolio management activities do not qualify for hedge accounting under SFAS 133. These derivatives are marked to market in Trading revenue. The MTM value incorporates both the cost of hedge premiums and changes in value due to movement in spreads and credit events, whereas the loans and lending-related commitments being hedged are accounted for on an accrual basis in Net interest income and assessed for impairment in the Provision for credit



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

60


Table of Contents

losses. This asymmetry in accounting treatment between loans and lending-related commitments and the credit derivatives utilized in the portfolio management activities causes earnings volatility that is not representative of the true changes in value of the Firm’s overall credit exposure. The MTM treatment of both the Firm’s credit derivative hedges (“short” credit positions) and the CVA, which reflects the credit quality of derivatives counterparty exposure (“long” credit positions), provides some natural offset. Additionally, the Firm actively manages its commercial credit exposure through loan sales. During 2003, the Firm sold $5.2 billion of loans and commitments, of which $1.3 billion was criticized.

The 2003 portfolio management activity resulted in $191 million of losses included in Trading revenue. These losses included $746 million related to credit derivatives that were used to hedge the Firm’s credit exposure, of which approximately $504 million was associated with credit derivatives used to hedge accrual lending activities and the remainder primarily hedged the credit risk of MTM derivative receivables. The losses were generally driven by an overall global tightening of credit spreads. The $746 million loss was largely offset by $555 million of trading revenue gains primarily related to the decrease in the MTM value of the CVA due to credit spread tightening. During 2003, the quarterly portfolio management Trading revenue results ranged from a net loss of $12 million in the third quarter to a net loss of $119 million in the second quarter.

Dealer/client activity

JPMorgan Chase’s dealer activity in credit derivatives is client-driven. The business acts as a market-maker in single-name credit derivatives and also structures more complex transactions for clients’ investment or risk management purposes. The credit derivatives trading function operates within the same framework as other market-making desks. Risk limits are established and closely monitored.

As of December 31, 2003, the total notional amounts of protection purchased and sold by the dealer business were $264 billion and $276 billion, respectively. The mismatch between these notional amounts is attributable to the Firm selling protection on large, diversified, predominantly investment-grade portfolios (including the most senior tranches) and then hedging these positions by buying protection on the more subordinated tranches of the same portfolios. In addition, the Firm may use securities to hedge certain derivative positions. Consequently, while there is a mismatch in notional amounts of credit derivatives, the Firm believes the risk positions are largely matched.

Consumer credit portfolio

The Firm’s managed consumer loan portfolio totaled $171.3 billion at December 31, 2003, an increase of 10% from 2002. Consumer lending–related commitments increased by 17% to $176.9 billion at December 31, 2003. The following table presents a summary of consumer credit exposure on a managed basis:

Consumer portfolio

                 
As of December 31, (in millions)   2003     2002  
 
U.S. consumer:
               
1–4 family residential
               
mortgages — first liens
  $ 54,460     $ 49,357  
Home equity
    19,252       14,643  
 
1–4 family residential mortgages
    73,712       64,000  
Credit card – reported (a)
    16,793       19,677  
Credit card securitizations (a)(b)
    34,856       30,722  
 
Credit card – managed
    51,649       50,399  
Automobile financings
    38,695       33,615  
Other consumer (c)
    7,221       7,524  
 
Total managed consumer loans
  $ 171,277     $ 155,538  
 
Lending-related commitments:
               
1–4 family residential mortgages
    28,846       20,016  
Credit cards
    141,143       123,461  
Automobile financings
    2,603       1,795  
Other consumer
    4,331       5,866  
 
Total lending-related commitments
  $ 176,923     $ 151,138  
 
Total consumer credit exposure
  $ 348,200     $ 306,676  
 
   
(a)  
At December 31, 2003, credit card securitizations included $1.1 billion of accrued interest and fees on securitized credit card loans that were classified in Other assets, consistent with FASB Staff Position, Accounting for Accrued Interest Receivable Related to Securitized and Sold Receivables under SFAS 140. Prior to March 31, 2003, this balance was classified in credit card loans.
(b)  
Represents the portion of JPMorgan Chase’s credit card receivables that have been securitized.
(c)  
Consists of installment loans (direct and indirect types of consumer finance), student loans, unsecured revolving lines of credit and non-U.S. consumer loans.

JPMorgan Chase’s consumer portfolio consists primarily of 1–4 family residential mortgages, credit cards and automobile financings. The consumer portfolio is predominantly U.S.-based. The following pie graph provides a summary of the consumer portfolio by loan type at year-end 2003 and each loan type’s net charge-off rate.

(CONSMER MANAGED LOAN PORTFOLIOS GRAPH)

The Firm’s largest component, 1–4 family residential mortgage loans is primarily secured by first mortgages, and at December 31, 2003 comprised 43% of the total consumer portfolio. The risk of these loans is the probability the consumer will default and that the value of the home will be insufficient to cover the mortgage plus carrying costs. Mortgage loans for 1–4 family residences at December 31, 2003, increased by 10% compared with last year to $54.5 billion. Home equity loans and home equity lines of credit totaled $19.3 billion at December 31, 2003, an increase



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

61


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

of $4.6 billion, or 31%, from 2002. These loans and lines are secured by first and second mortgages. The risks are similar to those of first mortgages; however, loss severity can increase when the Firm is in a second-lien position. As of December 31, 2003, 88% of home equity loans and lines of credit were secured by second liens. Borrowers with home equity lines of credit are approved for a line of credit for up to 10 years. The Firm has a future funding liability in situations where the borrower does not make use of the line of credit immediately but has the right to draw down the commitment at any time. As of December 31, 2003, outstandings under home equity lines were $16.6 billion and unused commitments were $23.4 billion (included in the $28.8 billion of 1–4 family residential mortgage lending-related commitments). The business actively manages the unused portion of these commitments and freezes a commitment when the borrower becomes delinquent. These accounts are then subject to proactive default management, with the objective of minimizing potential losses.

The Firm analyzes its credit card portfolio on a managed basis, which includes credit card receivables on the Consolidated balance sheet and those that have been securitized. Credit card customers are initially approved for a specific revolving credit line. For open accounts (those in good standing and able to transact), the difference between the approved line and the balance outstanding in the customer’s account is referred to as “open-to-buy.” The Firm is exposed to changes in the customer’s credit standing and therefore must calculate the aggregate size of this unused exposure and manage the potential credit risk. The size of the credit line and resulting open-to-buy balance is adjusted by the Firm based on the borrower’s payment and general credit performance. Managed credit card receivables increased by $1.3 billion, or 2%, during 2003. The managed net charge-off rate of 5.87% was unchanged from 2002.

Automobile financings grew by 15% to approximately $38.7 billion, while the net charge-off rate improved from 0.57% in 2002 to 0.45% in 2003.



The following chart presents the geographical concentration of the U.S. consumer loans by region for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002.

(US MANAGED CONSUMER LOANS GRAPH)

The following table presents the geographical concentration of consumer loans by product for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002.

Consumer loans by geographic region (a)

                                                 
    1–4 family residential   Managed credit   Automobile
    mortgages   card loans   financings
As of December 31, (in millions)   2003     2002     2003     2002     2003     2002  
 
New York City
  $ 14,624     $ 12,026     $ 3,058     $ 3,007     $ 2,904     $ 2,801  
New York (excluding New York City)
    1,863       2,452       3,045       3,002       1,013       936  
Remaining Northeast
    11,474       10,053       8,971       8,817       8,308       7,206  
 
Total Northeast
    27,961       24,531       15,074       14,826       12,225       10,943  
Southeast
    10,343       9,531       9,922       9,589       5,827       5,467  
Midwest
    5,349       4,834       9,976       9,654       7,862       5,839  
Texas
    3,776       3,978       4,535       4,336       3,780       3,877  
Southwest (excluding Texas)
    1,551       1,661       2,482       2,399       1,384       1,181  
California
    19,786       14,501       6,177       6,229       5,486       4,748  
West (excluding California)
    4,946       4,964       3,483       3,366       2,131       1,560  
Non-U.S.
          12                          
 
Total
  $ 73,712     $ 64,012     $ 51,649     $ 50,399     $ 38,695     $ 33,615  
 
(a)  
This table excludes other consumer loans of $7.2 billion and $7.5 billion at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively.

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

62


Table of Contents

Commercial and consumer nonperforming exposure and net charge-offs

The following table presents a summary of credit-related nonperforming, past due and net charge-off information for the dates indicated:

                                                                                 
As of or for the year ended   Nonperforming   Nonperforming assets   Past due 90 days and                   Average annual
December 31,   assets (i)   as a % of total   over and accruing   Net charge-offs   net charge-off rate
(in millions, except ratios)   2003     2002     2003     2002     2003     2002     2003     2002     2003     2002  
 
COMMERCIAL
                                                                               
Loans (a)
  $ 2,009     $ 3,672       2.42 %     4.01 %   $ 46     $ 57     $ 816     $ 1,881       0.91 %     1.93 %
Derivative receivables
    253       289       0.30       0.35                 NA     NA     NA     NA  
Other receivables
    108       108       100       100     NA     NA     NA     NA     NA     NA  
 
Total commercial credit-related assets
    2,370       4,069       1.42       2.33       46       57       816       1,881       0.91       1.93  
Lending-related commitments
  NA     NA     NA     NA     NA     NA             212             0.09  
 
Total commercial credit exposure
  $ 2,370     $ 4,069       0.62 %     0.99 %   $ 46     $ 57     $ 816     $ 2,093       0.26 %     0.62 %
 
CONSUMER
                                                                               
U.S. consumer:
                                                                               
1–4 family residential mortgages — first liens
  $ 249     $ 259       0.46 %     0.52 %   $     $     $ 23     $ 49       0.04 %     0.11 %
Home equity
    55       53       0.29       0.36                   10       7       0.06       0.05  
 
1–4 family residential mortgages
    304       312       0.41       0.49                   33       56       0.04       0.10  
Credit card – reported (b)(c)
    11       15       0.07       0.08       248       451       1,072       1,389       6.32       6.42  
Credit card securitizations (b)(d)
                            879       630       1,870       1,439       5.64       5.43  
 
Credit card – managed
    11       15       0.02       0.03       1,127       1,081       2,942       2,828       5.87       5.87  
Automobile financings
    119       118       0.31       0.35                   171       161       0.45       0.57  
Other consumer (e)
    66       76       0.91       1.01       21       22       180       189       2.45       2.41  
 
Total managed consumer loans
    500       521       0.29       0.33       1,148       1,103       3,326       3,234       1.96       2.30  
Lending-related commitments
  NA     NA     NA     NA     NA     NA     NA     NA     NA     NA  
 
Total consumer credit exposure
  $ 500     $ 521       0.14 %     0.17 %   $ 1,148     $ 1,103     $ 3,326     $ 3,234       1.00 %     1.15 %
 
TOTAL CREDIT PORTFOLIO
                                                                               
Managed loans
  $ 2,509     $ 4,193       0.99 %     1.70 %   $ 1,194     $ 1,160     $ 4,142     $ 5,115       1.60 %     2.15 %
Derivative receivables
    253       289       0.30       0.35                 NA     NA     NA     NA  
Other receivables
    108       108       100       100     NA     NA     NA     NA     NA     NA  
 
Total managed credit-related assets
    2,870       4,590       0.85       1.39       1,194       1,160       4,142       5,115       1.60       2.15  
Total lending-related commitments
  NA     NA     NA     NA     NA     NA             212             0.06  
Assets acquired in loan satisfactions (f)
    216       190     NA     NA     NA     NA     NA     NA     NA     NA  
 
Total credit portfolio (g)
  $ 3,086     $ 4,780       0.42 %     0.66 %   $ 1,194     $ 1,160     $ 4,142     $ 5,327       0.64 %     0.86 %
 
Credit derivatives hedges notional (h)
  $ (123 )   $ (66 )   NA     NA     NA     NA     NA     NA     NA     NA  
 
   
 
(a)  
Average annual net charge-off rate would have been 0.97% for the year ended December 31, 2003, excluding the impact of the adoption of FIN 46.
(b)  
At December 31, 2003, credit card securitizations included $166 million of accrued interest and fees on securitized credit card loans past due 90 days and over and accruing that were classified in Other assets, consistent with the FASB Staff Position, Accounting for Accrued Interest Receivable Related to Securitized and Sold Receivables under SFAS 140. Prior to March 31, 2003, this balance was classified in credit card loans. At December 31, 2003, none was nonperforming.
(c)  
In connection with charge-offs, during 2003 and 2002, $372 million and $387 million, respectively, of accrued credit card interest and fees were reversed and recorded as a reduction of interest income and fee revenue.
(d)  
Represents securitized credit cards. For a further discussion of credit card securitizations, see page 41 of this Annual Report.
(e)  
Consists of installment loans (direct and indirect types of consumer finance), student loans, unsecured revolving lines of credit and non-U.S. consumer loans.
(f)  
Includes $9 million and $14 million of commercial assets acquired in loan satisfactions, and $207 million and $176 million of consumer assets acquired in loan satisfactions at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
(g)  
At December 31, 2003 and 2002, excludes $2.3 billion and $3.1 billion, respectively, of residential mortgage receivables in foreclosure status that are insured by government agencies. These amounts are excluded as reimbursement is proceeding normally, and are recorded in Other assets.
(h)  
Represents single name credit derivative hedges of commercial credit exposure that do not qualify for hedge accounting under SFAS 133.
(i)  
Nonperforming assets exclude nonaccrual HFS loans of $97 million and $43 million at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. Nonaccrual commercial HFS loans were $52 million and $18 million, and nonaccrual consumer HFS loans were $45 million and $25 million at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
 
   
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

63


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Nonperforming assets decreased by $1.7 billion, or 35%, during the year ended December 31, 2003, to $3.1 billion. The decrease was due to activity in the commercial portfolio: total reductions, including repayments, loan sales and net charge-offs exceeded new additions, resulting in net reductions of $1.7 billion. By contrast, there were commercial net additions during 2002. A decline in exposure to the Telecom services, Utilities and Media industries accounted for more than half of the overall $1.7 billion decrease.

Commercial

Commercial nonperforming loans decreased by 45%, to $2.0 billion as of December 31, 2003, from $3.7 billion at year-end 2002. Over the same period, nonperforming commercial loans as a percentage of total commercial loans fell to 2.42% from 4.01%. Commercial loan net charge-offs in 2003 were $816 million, compared with $1.9 billion in 2002, the result of improved credit quality in the portfolio and increased recoveries resulting from restructurings. There were no net charge-offs of commercial lending–related commitments in 2003, compared with $212 million in 2002. The average annual net charge-off rate for commercial loans improved significantly, to 0.91% in 2003 from 1.93% in 2002.

Commercial net charge-offs in 2004 are expected to decline, but at a slower pace than in the second half of 2003.

Consumer

The $21 million decrease in consumer nonperforming loans reflected improved credit quality in the portfolio. While net charge-offs increased by $92 million during the year reflecting a 10% growth in the portfolio, the average annual net charge-off rate declined to 1.96% from 2.30% during 2002.

In 2004, the amount of gross charge-offs is expected to increase due to growth in outstandings, but net charge-off rates are expected to remain stable.

Allowance for credit losses

JPMorgan Chase’s Allowance for credit losses is intended to cover probable credit losses, including losses where the asset is not specifically identified or the size of the loss has not been determined. At least quarterly, the Firm’s Risk Management Committee reviews the Allowance for credit losses relative to the risk profile of the Firm’s credit portfolio and current economic conditions. The allowance is adjusted based on that review if, in management’s judgment, changes are warranted. The allowance includes specific and expected loss components and a residual component. For further discussion of the components of the Allowance for credit losses, see Critical accounting estimates used by the Firm on pages 75–76 and Note 12 on page 100 of this Annual Report. At December 31, 2003, management deemed the allowance for credit losses to be appropriate to absorb losses that currently may exist but are not yet identifiable.



Summary of changes in the allowance

                                                                 
    2003   2002
(in millions)   Commercial     Consumer     Residual     Total     Commercial     Consumer     Residual     Total  
 
Loans:
                                                               
Beginning balance at January 1
  $ 2,216     $ 2,360     $ 774     $ 5,350     $ 1,724     $ 2,105     $ 695     $ 4,524  
Net charge-offs
    (816 )     (1,456 )           (2,272 )     (1,881 )     (1,795 )           (3,676 )
Provision for loan losses
    (30 )     1,491       118       1,579       2,371       1,589       79       4,039  
Other
    1       (138 )(c)     3       (134 )     2       461             463  
 
Ending balance at December 31
  $ 1,371 (a)   $ 2,257     $ 895     $ 4,523     $ 2,216 (a)   $ 2,360     $ 774     $ 5,350  
 
Lending-related commitments:
                                                               
Beginning balance at January 1
  $ 324     $     $ 39     $ 363     $ 226     $     $ 56     $ 282  
Net charge-offs
                            (212 )                 (212 )
Provision for lending-related commitments
    (47 )           8       (39 )     309             (17 )     292  
Other
                            1                   1  
 
Ending balance at December 31
  $ 277 (b)   $     $ 47     $ 324     $ 324 (b)   $     $ 39     $ 363  
 
(a)  
Includes $917 million and $454 million of commercial specific and commercial expected loss components, respectively, at December 31, 2003. Includes $1.6 billion and $613 million of commercial specific and commercial expected loss components, respectively, at December 31, 2002.
(b)  
Includes $172 million and $105 million of commercial specific and commercial expected loss components, respectively, at December 31, 2003. Includes $237 million and $87 million of commercial specific and commercial expected loss components, respectively, at December 31, 2002.
(c)  
Includes $138 million related to the transfer of the allowance for accrued interest and fees on securitized credit card loans.

   
 
64   J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

 


Table of Contents

Credit costs

                                                                 
For the year ended December 31   2003   2002
(in millions)   Commercial     Consumer     Residual     Total     Commercial     Consumer     Residual     Total  
 
Provision for loan losses
  $ (30 )   $ 1,491     $ 118     $ 1,579     $ 2,371     $ 1,589     $ 79     $ 4,039  
Provision for lending-related commitments
    (47 )           8       (39 )     309             (17 )     292  
Securitized credit losses
          1,870             1,870             1,439             1,439  
 
Total managed credit costs
  $ (77 )   $ 3,361     $ 126     $ 3,410     $ 2,680     $ 3,028     $ 62     $ 5,770  
 

Loans

The commercial specific loss component of the allowance was $917 million at December 31, 2003, a decrease of 43% from year-end 2002. The decrease was attributable to the improvement in the credit quality of the commercial loan portfolio, as well as the reduction in the size of the portfolio.

The commercial expected loss component of the allowance was $454 million at December 31, 2003, a decrease of 26% from year-end 2002. The decrease reflected an improvement in the average quality of the loan portfolio, as well as the improving credit environment, which affected inputs to the expected loss model.

The consumer expected loss component of the allowance was $2.3 billion at December 31, 2003, a decrease of 4% from year-end 2002. Although the consumer managed loan portfolio increased by 10%, the businesses that drove the increase, Home Finance and Auto Finance, have collateralized products with lower expected loss rates.

The residual component of the allowance was $895 million at December 31, 2003. The residual component, which incorporates management’s judgment, addresses uncertainties that are not considered in the formula-based commercial specific and expected components of the allowance for credit losses.

The $121 million increase addressed uncertainties in the economic environment and concentrations in the commercial loan portfolio that existed during the first half of 2003. In the second half of the year, as commercial credit quality continued to improve and the commercial allowance declined further, the residual component was reduced as well. At December 31, 2003, the residual component represented approximately 20% of the total allowance for loan losses, within the Firm’s target range of between 10% and 20%. The Firm anticipates that if the current positive trend in economic conditions and credit quality continues, the commercial and residual components will continue to be reduced.

Lending-related commitments

To provide for the risk of loss inherent in the credit-extension process, management also computes specific and expected loss components as well as a residual component for commercial lending–related commitments. This is computed using a methodology similar to that used for the commercial loan portfolio, modified for expected maturities and probabilities of drawdown. The allowance decreased by 11% to $324 million as of December 31, 2003, due to improvement in the criticized portion of the Firm’s lending-related commitments.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report   65

 


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Market risk management

Market risk represents the potential loss in value of portfolios and financial instruments caused by adverse movements in market variables, such as interest and foreign exchange rates, credit spreads, and equity and commodity prices. JPMorgan Chase employs comprehensive and rigorous processes intended to measure, monitor and control market risk.

Market risk organization

Market Risk Management (“MRM”) is an independent function that identifies, measures, monitors and controls market risk. It seeks to facilitate efficient risk/return decisions and to reduce volatility in operating performance. It strives to make the Firm’s market risk profile transparent to senior management, the Board of Directors and regulators.

The chart below depicts the MRM organizational structure and describes the responsibilities of the groups within MRM.



(MARKET RISK CHART)

MRM works in partnership with the business segments, which are expected to maintain strong risk discipline at all levels. For example, risk-taking businesses have Middle Office functions that act independently from trading personnel and are responsible for

verifying risk exposures they take. Weekly meetings are held between MRM and the heads of risk-taking businesses, to discuss and decide on risk exposures in the context of the market environment and client flows.



Key terms:

 
VAR: Worst-case loss expected within the confidence level; while larger losses are possible, they have a correspondingly lower probability of actually occurring
 
 
Full-revaluation VAR: Method that prices each financial instrument separately, based on the actual pricing models used by the lines of business; compared with sensitivity-based VAR, which only approximates the impact of market moves on financial instrument prices
 
 
Backtesting: Validating a model by comparing its predictions with actual results
 
 
Confidence level: The probability that actual losses will not exceed estimated VAR; the greater the confidence level, the higher the VAR

 

66   J.P.Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

 


Table of Contents

There are also groups that report to the Chief Financial Officer with some responsibility for market risk-related activities. For example, within the Finance area, the valuation control functions are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the valuations of positions that expose the Firm to market risk.

Positions that expose the Firm to market risk are classified into two categories. Trading risk includes positions held as part of a business whose strategy is to trade, make markets or take positions for the Firm’s own trading account; gains and losses in these positions are reported in Trading revenue. Nontrading risk includes mortgage banking positions held for longer-term investment and positions used to manage the Firm’s asset/liability exposures. In most cases, unrealized gains and losses in these positions are accounted for at fair value, with the gains and losses reported in Net income or Other comprehensive income.

Tools used to measure risks

Because no single measure can reflect all aspects of market risk, the Firm uses several measures, both statistical and nonstatistical, including:

  Statistical risk measures

  -  
Value-at-Risk (“VAR”)
 
  -  
Risk identification for large exposures (“RIFLE”)

 
Nonstatistical risk measures

  -  
Economic-value stress tests
 
  -  
Net interest income stress tests
 
  -  
Other measures of position size and sensitivity to market moves

Value-at-Risk

JPMorgan Chase’s statistical risk measure, VAR, gauges the potential loss from adverse market moves in an ordinary market environment and provides a consistent cross-business measure of risk profiles and levels of risk diversification. VAR is used to compare risks across businesses, to monitor limits and to allocate economic capital to the business segments. VAR provides risk transparency in a normal trading environment.

Each business day, the Firm undertakes a comprehensive VAR calculation that includes both trading and nontrading activities. JPMorgan Chase’s VAR calculation is highly granular, comprising more than 1.5 million positions and 240,000 pricing series (e.g., securities prices, interest rates, foreign exchange rates). For a substantial portion of its exposure, the Firm has implemented full-revaluation VAR, which, management believes, generates the most accurate results.

To calculate VAR, the Firm uses historical simulation, which measures risk across instruments and portfolios in a consistent, comparable way. This approach assumes that historical changes in market value are representative of future changes. The simulation is based on market data for the previous 12 months.

The Firm calculates VAR using a one-day time horizon and a 99% confidence level. This means the Firm would expect to incur losses greater than that predicted by VAR estimates only once in every 100 trading days, or about 2.5 times a year.

All statistical models involve a degree of uncertainty, depending on the assumptions they employ. The Firm prefers historical simulation, because it involves fewer assumptions about the distribution of portfolio losses than parameter-based methodologies. In addition, the Firm regularly assesses the quality of the market data, since their accuracy is critical to computing VAR. Nevertheless, because VAR is based on historical market data, it may not accurately reflect future risk during environments in which market volatility is changing. In addition, the VAR measure on any particular day may not be indicative of future risk levels, since positions and market conditions may both change over time.

While VAR is a valuable tool for evaluating relative risks and aggregating risks across businesses, it only measures the potential volatility of daily revenues. Profitability and risk levels over longer time periods – a fiscal quarter or a year – may be only loosely related to the average value of VAR over those periods. First, while VAR measures potential fluctuations around average daily revenue, the average itself could reflect significant gains or losses; for example, from client revenues that accompany risk-taking activities. Second, large trading revenues may result from positions taken over longer periods of time. For example, a business may maintain an exposure to rising or falling interest rates over a period of weeks or months. If the market exhibits a long-term trend over that time, the business could experience large gains or losses, even though revenue volatility on each individual day may have been small.

VAR Backtesting

To evaluate the soundness of its VAR model, the Firm conducts daily backtesting of VAR against actual financial results, based on daily market risk–related revenue. Market risk–related revenue is defined as the daily change in value of the mark-to-market trading portfolios plus any trading-related net interest income, brokerage commissions, underwriting fees or other revenue. The Firm’s definition of market risk–related revenue is consistent with the Federal Reserve Board’s implementation of the Basel Committee’s market risk capital rules. The histogram below illustrates the Firm’s daily market risk–related revenue for trading businesses for 2003. The chart shows that the Firm posted positive daily market risk–related revenue on 235 out of 260 days in 2003, with 170 days exceeding $25 million. Losses were sustained on 25 days; nine of those days were in the third quarter, primarily driven by poor overall trading results. The largest daily trading loss during the year was $100 million.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report   67

 


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

The inset in the histogram examines the 25 days on which the Firm posted trading losses and depicts the amount by which VAR was greater than the actual loss on each day. There was one day on which trading losses exceeded VAR by approximately 10%, a performance statistically consistent with the Firm’s 99% confidence level. During the third quarter, there was an additional day

on which the Firm’s losses exceeded VAR; these losses were attributable to certain positions in the mortgage banking business, which were then included in the Firm’s trading portfolio, but which are now included in the nontrading portfolio with other mortgage banking positions.



(BARCHART)

Economic-value stress testing

While VAR reflects the risk of loss due to unlikely events in normal markets, stress testing captures the Firm’s exposure to unlikely but plausible events in abnormal markets. Stress testing is equally important as VAR in measuring and controlling risk. Stress testing enhances the understanding of the Firm’s risk profile and loss potential and is used for monitoring limits, cross-business risk measurement and economic capital allocation.

Economic-value stress tests measure the potential change in the value of the Firm’s portfolios. Applying economic-value stress tests helps the Firm understand how the economic value of its balance sheet (not the amounts reported under GAAP) would change under certain scenarios. The Firm conducts economic-value stress tests for both its trading and its nontrading activities, using the same scenarios for both.

The Firm stress tests its portfolios at least once a month using multiple scenarios. Several macroeconomic event-related scenarios are evaluated across the Firm, with shocks to roughly 10,000 market

prices specified for each scenario. Additional scenarios focus on the risks predominant in individual business segments and include scenarios that focus on the potential for adverse moves in complex portfolios.

Scenarios are continually reviewed and updated to reflect changes in the Firm’s risk profile and economic events. Stress-test results, trends and explanations are provided each month to the Firm’s senior management and to the lines of business, to help them better measure and manage risks and to understand event risk-sensitive positions.

The Firm’s stress-test methodology assumes that, during an actual stress event, no management action would be taken to change the risk profile of portfolios. This assumption captures the decreased liquidity that often occurs with abnormal markets and results, in the Firm’s view, in a conservative stress-test result.

It is important to note that VAR results cannot be directly correlated to stress-test loss results for three reasons. First, stress-test losses are calculated at varying dates each month, while VAR is



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

68


Table of Contents

performed daily and disclosed at the period-end date. Second, VAR and stress tests are two distinct risk measurements yielding very different loss potentials. Thus, although the same trading portfolios are used for both tests, VAR is based on a distribution of one-day historical losses measured over the most recent one year; by contrast, stress testing subjects the portfolio to more extreme, larger moves over a longer time horizon (e.g., 2-3 weeks). Third, as VAR and stress tests are distinct risk measurements, the impact of portfolio diversification can vary greatly. For VAR, markets can change in patterns over a one-year time horizon, moving from highly correlated to less so; in stress testing, the focus is on a single event and the associated correlations in an extreme market situation. As a result, while VAR over a given time horizon can be lowered by a diversification benefit in the portfolio, this benefit would not necessarily manifest itself in stress-test scenarios, which assume large, coherent moves across all markets.

Net interest income stress testing

The VAR and stress-test measures described above illustrate the total economic sensitivity of the Firm’s balance sheet to changes in market variables. The effect of interest rate exposure on reported Net income is also critical. The Firm conducts simulations of Net interest income for its nontrading activities under a variety of interest rate scenarios, which are consistent with the scenarios used for economic-value stress testing.

Net interest income stress tests measure the potential change in the Firm’s NII over the next 12 months. These stress tests highlight exposures to various interest rate-sensitive factors, such as rates

(e.g., the prime lending rate), pricing strategies on deposits and changes in product mix. These stress tests also take into account forecasted balance sheet changes, such as asset sales and securitizations, as well as prepayment and reinvestment behavior.

RIFLE

In addition to VAR, JPMorgan Chase employs the Risk identification for large exposures (“RIFLE”) methodology as another statistical risk measure. The Firm requires that all market risk-taking businesses self-assess their risks to unusual and specific events. Individuals who manage risk positions, particularly complex positions, identify potential worst-case losses that could arise from an unusual or specific event, such as a potential tax change, and estimate the probabilities of such losses. Through the Firm’s RIFLE system, this information is then directed to the appropriate level of management, thereby permitting the Firm to identify further earnings vulnerabilities not adequately covered by VAR and stress testing.

Nonstatistical risk measures

Nonstatistical risk measures other than stress testing include net open positions, basis point values, option sensitivities, position concentrations and position turnover. These measures provide additional information on an exposure’s size and the direction in which it is moving. Nonstatistical measures are used for monitoring limits, one-off approvals and tactical controls.



The table below shows both trading and nontrading VAR by risk type, together with the Corporate total. Details of the VAR exposures are discussed in the Trading Risk and Nontrading Risk sections below.

VAR by risk type

                                                                 
    2003   2002(b)
As of or for the year   Average     Minimum     Maximum     At     Average     Minimum     Maximum     At  
ended December 31, (in millions)   VAR     VAR     VAR     December 31     VAR     VAR     VAR     December 31  
 
By risk type:
                                                               
Interest rate
  $ 63.9     $ 43.1     $ 109.9     $ 83.7     $ 67.6     $ 50.1     $ 94.7     $ 59.6  
Foreign exchange
    16.8       11.0       30.2       23.5       11.6       4.4       21.2       18.4  
Equities
    18.2       6.7       51.6       45.6       14.4       5.4       32.7       8.4  
Commodities
    2.9       1.7       4.9       3.3       3.6       1.6       13.3       1.9  
Hedge fund investments
    4.8       3.2       8.7       5.5       3.2       2.5       3.6       3.2  
Less: portfolio diversification
    (38.0 )   NM   NM     (58.4 )     (28.8 )   NM   NM     (26.9 )
 
Total Trading VAR(a)
  $ 68.6     $ 43.2     $ 114.7     $ 103.2     $ 71.6     $ 57.0     $ 102.8     $ 64.6  
 
Nontrading activities
    151.8       81.5       286.0       203.8       97.3       68.9       139.3       107.7  
Less: portfolio diversification
    (45.5 )   NM   NM     (25.7 )     (48.6 )   NM   NM     (61.0 )
 
Total VAR
  $ 174.9     $ 83.7     $ 331.4     $ 281.3     $ 120.3     $ 87.6     $ 160.2     $ 111.3  
 
(a)  
Amounts exclude VAR related to the Firm’s private equity business. For a discussion of Private equity risk management, see page 74 of this Annual Report.
(b)  
Amounts have been revised to reflect the reclassification of certain mortgage banking positions from the trading portfolio to the nontrading portfolio.
NM-  
Because the minimum and maximum may occur on different days for different risk components, it is not meaningful to compute a portfolio diversification effect. In addition, JPMorgan Chase’s average and period-end VARs are less than the sum of the VARs of its market risk components, due to risk offsets resulting from portfolio diversification.


J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

69


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Trading Risk

Major risks

Interest rates: Interest rate risk (which includes credit spread risk) involves the potential decline in net income or financial condition due to adverse changes in market interest rates, which may result in changes to NII, securities valuations, and other interest-sensitive revenues and expenses.

Foreign exchange, equities and commodities: These risks involve the potential decline in net income or financial condition due to adverse changes in foreign exchange, equities or commodities markets, whether due to proprietary positions taken by the Firm, or due to a decrease in the level of client activity.

Hedge fund investments: The Firm invests in numerous hedge funds that have various strategic goals, investment strategies, industry concentrations, portfolio sizes and management styles. Fund investments are passive long-term investments. Individual hedge funds may have exposure to interest rate, foreign exchange, equity and commodity risk within their portfolio risk structures.

Trading VAR

The largest contributor to trading VAR was interest rate risk. Before portfolio diversification, interest rate risk accounted for roughly 60% of the average Trading Portfolio VAR. The diversification effect, which on average reduced the daily average Trading Portfolio VAR by $38 million in 2003, reflects the fact that the largest losses for different positions and risks do not typically occur at the same time. The risk of a portfolio of positions is therefore usually less than the sum of the risks of the positions themselves. The degree of diversification is determined both by the extent to which different market variables tend to move together, and by the extent to which different businesses have similar positions.

The increase in year-end VAR was driven by an increase in the VAR for equities risk, which was attributable to a significant increase in customer-driven business in equity options. In general, over the course of a year, VAR exposures can vary significantly as trading positions change and market volatility fluctuates.

Economic-value stress testing

The following table represents the worst-case potential economic-value stress-test loss (pre-tax) in the Firm’s trading portfolio as predicted by stress-test scenarios:

Trading economic value stress-test loss results — pre-tax

                                                                 
As of or for            
the year ended   2003   2002(a)
December 31,                           At                             At  
(in millions)   Avg.     Min.     Max.     Dec. 4     Avg.     Min.     Max.     Dec. 5  
 
Stress-test loss — pre-tax
  $ (508 )   $ (255 )   $ (888 )   $ (436 )   $ (405 )   $ (103 )   $ (715 )   $ (219 )
 
(a)  
Amounts have been revised to reflect the reclassification of certain mortgage banking positions from the trading portfolio to the nontrading portfolio.

The potential stress-test loss as of December 4, 2003, is the result of the “Equity Market Collapse” stress scenario, which is broadly modeled on the events of October 1987. Under this scenario, global equity markets suffer a sharp reversal after a long sustained rally; equity prices decline globally; volatilities for equities, interest rates and credit products increase dramatically for short maturities and less so for longer maturities; sovereign bond yields decline moderately; and swap spreads and credit spreads widen moderately.

Nontrading Risk

Major risk — Interest rates

The execution of the Firm’s core business strategies, the delivery of products and services to its customers, and the discretionary positions the Firm undertakes to risk-manage structural exposures give rise to interest rate risk in its nontrading activities.

This exposure can result from a variety of factors, including differences in the timing between the maturity or repricing of assets, liabilities and off-balance sheet instruments. Changes in the level and shape of interest rate curves may also create interest rate risk, since the repricing characteristics of the Firm’s assets do not necessarily match those of its liabilities. The Firm is also exposed to basis risk, which is the difference in the repricing characteristics of two floating-rate indices, such as the prime rate and 3-month LIBOR. In addition, some of the Firm’s products have embedded optionality that may have an impact on pricing and balance levels.

The Firm manages exposure in its structural interest rate activities on a consolidated, corporate-wide basis. Business units transfer their interest rate risk to Global Treasury through a transfer pricing system, which takes into account the elements of interest rate exposure that can be hedged in financial markets. These elements include current balance and contractual rates of interest, contractual principal payment schedules, expected prepayment experience, interest rate reset dates and maturities and rate indices used for re-pricing. All transfer pricing assumptions are reviewed on a semiannual basis and must be approved by the Firm’s Capital Committee.

The Firm’s mortgage banking activities also give rise to complex interest rate risks. The interest rate exposure from the Firm’s mortgage banking activities is a result of option and basis risks. Option risk arises from prepayment features in mortgages and MSRs, and from the probability of newly originated mortgage commitments actually closing. Basis risk results from different relative movements between mortgage rates and other interest rates. These risks are managed through hedging programs specific to the different mortgage banking activities. Potential changes in the market value of MSRs and increased amortization levels of MSRs are managed via a risk management program that attempts to offset changes in the market value of MSRs with changes in the market value of derivatives and investment securities. A similar approach is implemented to manage the interest rate and option risks associated with the Firm’s mortgage origination business.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

70


Table of Contents

Nontrading VAR

For nontrading activities that involve market risk, VAR measures the amount of potential change in their economic value; however, it is not a measure of reported revenues, since those activities are not marked to market through earnings.

The increase in average, maximum and December 31 nontrading portfolio VAR was primarily attributable to the increase in market volatility during the 2003 third quarter, and to the rise in interest rates in the second half of 2003, which increased the sensitivity of mortgage instruments to the basis risk between mortgage rates and other interest rates.

Economic-value stress testing

The Firm conducts both economic-value and NII stress tests on its nontrading activities. Economic-value stress tests measure the potential change in the value of these portfolios under the same scenarios used to evaluate the trading portfolios.

The following table represents the potential worst-case economic-value stress-test loss (pre-tax) in the Firm’s nontrading portfolio as predicted by stress-test scenarios:

Nontrading economic-value stress-test loss results — pre-tax

                                                                 
As of or for            
the year ended   2003   2002
December 31,                           At                             At  
(in millions)   Avg.     Min.     Max.     Dec. 4     Avg.     Min.     Max.     Dec. 5  
 
Stress-test loss — pre-tax
  $ (637 )   $ (392 )   $ (1,130 )   $ (665 )   $ (967 )   $ (523 )   $ (1,566 )   $ (556 )
 

The potential stress-test loss as of December 4, 2003, is the result of the “Credit Crunch” stress scenario, which is broadly based on the events of 1997-98. Under that scenario, political instability in emerging markets leads to a flight to quality; sovereign bond yields decline moderately; the U.S. dollar declines against the euro and Japanese yen; credit spreads widen sharply; mortgage spreads widen; and equity prices decline moderately.

Net interest income stress testing

The following table shows the change in the Firm’s NII over the next 12 months that would result from uniform increases or decreases of 100 basis points in all interest rates. It also shows the largest decline in the Firm’s NII under the same stress-test scenarios utilized for the trading portfolio. At year-end 2003, JPMorgan Chase’s largest potential NII stress-test loss was estimated at $160 million, primarily the result of increased funding costs.

Nontrading NII stress-test loss results — pre-tax

                 
December 31, (in millions)   2003     2002  
 
+/- 100bp parallel change
  $ (160 )   $ (277 )
Other stress-test scenarios
    (88 )     (133 )
 

Nonstatistical measures

The Firm also calculates exposures to directional interest rate changes and to changes in the spread between the swap curve and other basis risks. At year-end, the market value of the Firm’s nontrading positions did not have a significant exposure to increases or decreases in interest rates. However, the Firm’s non-trading positions maintain an exposure to the spread between mortgage rates and swap rates; at year-end the Firm was exposed to a widening of this spread.

Capital allocation for market risk

The Firm allocates market risk capital guided by the principle that capital should reflect the extent to which risks are present in businesses. Daily VAR, monthly stress-test results and other factors determine appropriate capital charges for major business segments. The VAR measure captures a large number of one-day price moves, while stress tests capture a smaller number of very large price moves. The Firm allocates market risk capital to each business segment according to a formula that weights that segment’s VAR and stress-test exposures.

Risk monitoring and control

Limits

Market risk is primarily controlled through a series of limits. The sizes of the limits reflect the Firm’s risk appetite after extensive analyses of the market environment and business strategy. The analyses examine factors such as market volatility, product liquidity, business track record, and management experience and depth.

The Firm maintains different levels of limits. Corporate-level limits encompass VAR calculations and stress-test loss advisories. Similarly, business-segment levels include limits on VAR calculations, nonstatistical measurements and P&L loss advisories. Businesses are responsible for adhering to established limits, against which exposures are monitored and reported daily. An exceeded limit is reported immediately to senior management, and the affected business unit must take appropriate action to comply with the limit. If the business cannot do this within an acceptable timeframe, senior management is consulted on the appropriate action.

MRM regularly reviews and updates risk limits, and the Firm’s Risk Management Committee reviews and approves risk limits at least twice a year. MRM further controls the Firm’s exposure by specifically designating approved financial instruments for each business unit.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

71


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Qualitative review

MRM also performs periodic reviews of both businesses and products with exposure to market risk in order to assess the ability of the businesses to control market risk. The business management’s strategy, market conditions, product details and effectiveness of risk controls are reviewed. Specific recommendations for improvements are made to management.

Model review

Many of the Firm’s financial instruments cannot be valued based on quoted market prices but are instead valued using pricing models. Such models are used for management of risk positions, such as reporting risk against limits, and for valuation. The Firm reviews the models it uses to assess model appropriateness and consistency across businesses. The model reviews consider a

number of issues: appropriateness of the model, assessing the extent to which it accurately reflects the characteristics of the transaction and captures its significant risks; independence and reliability of data sources; appropriateness and adequacy of numerical algorithms; and sensitivity to input parameters or other assumptions which cannot be priced from the market.

Reviews are conducted for new or changed models, as well as previously accepted models. Re-reviews assess whether there have been any material changes to the accepted models; whether there have been any changes in the product or market that may impact the model’s validity; and whether there are theoretical or competitive developments that may require reassessment of the model’s adequacy. For a summary of valuations based on models, see Critical accounting estimates used by the Firm on pages 76-77 of this Annual Report.



 

Operational risk management

Operational risk is the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed processes or systems, human factors, or external events.

Overview

Operational risk is inherent in each of the Firm’s businesses and support activities. Operational risk can manifest itself in various ways, including errors, business interruptions, inappropriate behavior of employees and vendors that do not perform in accordance with outsourcing arrangements. These events can potentially result in financial losses and other damage to the Firm, including reputational harm.

To monitor and control operational risk, the Firm maintains a system of comprehensive policies and a control framework designed to provide a sound and well controlled operational environment. The goal is to keep operational risk at appropriate levels, in light of the Firm’s financial strength, the characteristics of its businesses, the markets in which it operates, and the competitive and regulatory environment to which it is subject.

Notwithstanding these control measures, the Firm incurs operational losses. The Firm’s approach to operational risk management is intended to mitigate such losses.

Operational risk management practices

Throughout 2003, JPMorgan Chase continued to execute a multi-year plan, begun in 2001, for an integrated approach that emphasizes active management of operational risk throughout the Firm. The objective of this effort is to supplement the traditional control-based approach to operational risk with risk measures, tools and disciplines that are risk-specific, consistently applied and utilized Firm-wide. Key themes for this effort are transparency of information, escalation of key issues and accountability for issue resolution. Ultimate responsibility for the Firm’s operational risk management practices resides with the Chief Risk Officer. The components are:

Governance structure: The governance structure provides the framework for the Firm’s operational risk management activities. Primary responsibility for managing operational risk rests with business managers. These individuals are responsible for establishing and maintaining appropriate internal control procedures for their respective businesses.

The Operational Risk Committee, which meets quarterly, is composed of senior operational risk and finance managers from each of the businesses. In addition, each of the businesses must maintain business control committees to oversee their operational risk management practices.

Self-assessment process: In 2003, JPMorgan Chase continued to refine its Firm-wide self-assessment process. The goal of the process was for each business to identify the key operational risks specific to its environment and assess the degree to which it maintained appropriate controls. Action plans were developed for control issues identified, and businesses are to be held accountable for tracking and resolving these issues on a timely basis.

Self-assessments were completed by the businesses through the use of Horizon, a software application developed by the Firm. With the aid of Horizon, all businesses were required to perform semiannual self-assessments in 2003. Going forward, the Firm will utilize the self-assessment process as a dynamic risk management tool.

Operational risk-event monitoring: The Firm has a process for reporting operational risk-event data, permitting analyses of errors and losses as well as trends. Such analyses, performed both at a line-of-business level and by risk event type, enable identification of root causes associated with risk events faced by the businesses. Where available, the internal data can be supplemented with external data for comparative analysis with industry patterns. The data reported will enable the Firm to back-test against self-assessment results.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

72


Table of Contents

Integrated reporting: The Firm is presently designing an operational risk architecture model to integrate the above individual components into a unified, web-based tool. When fully implemented, this model will enable the Firm to enhance its reporting and analysis of operational risk data, leading to improved risk management and financial performance.

Audit alignment: In addition to conducting independent internal audits, the Firm’s internal audit group provided guidance on the design and implementation of the operational risk framework. This guidance has helped further the Firm-wide implementation of the framework, which in turn has led to a stronger overall control environment. The internal audit group utilizes the business self-assessment results to help focus its internal audits on operational control issues. The group also reviews the effectiveness and accuracy of the business self-assessment process during the conduct of its audits.

Operational Risk Categories

For purposes of analysis and aggregation, the Firm breaks operational risk events down into five primary categories:

 
Clients, products and business practices
 
Fraud, theft and unauthorized activity
 
Execution and processing errors
 
Employment practices and workplace safety
 
Physical asset and infrastructure damage

Compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404

The Firm intends to use, as much as possible, its existing corporate governance and operational risk management practices to satisfy the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act regarding internal control over financial reporting. The Firm is currently in the process of evaluating the requirements of Section 404 and of implementing additional procedures into its existing practices. The Firm intends to be in full compliance with the requirements of the Act when they become effective in 2004. For a further discussion on the Act, see page 79 of this Annual Report.

Capital allocation for operational and business risk

During 2003, the Firm implemented a new risk-based capital allocation methodology which estimates operational and business risk independently, on a bottoms-up basis, and allocates capital to each component. Implementation of the new methodology in 2003 resulted in an overall lower amount of capital allocated to the lines of business with respect to operational and business risks.

The operational risk capital model is based on actual losses and potential scenario-based stress losses, with adjustments to the capital calculation to reflect changes in the quality of the control environment and with a potential offset for the use of risk-transfer products. The Firm believes the model is consistent with the proposed Basel II Accord and expects to propose it eventually

for qualification under the Advanced Measurement Approach for operational risk.

Business risk is defined as the risk associated with volatility in the Firm’s earnings due to factors not captured by other parts of its economic-capital framework. Such volatility can arise from ineffective design or execution of business strategies, volatile economic or financial market activity, changing client expectations and demands, and restructuring to adjust for changes in the competitive environment. For business risk, capital is allocated to each business based on historical revenue volatility and measures of fixed and variable expenses. Earnings volatility arising from other risk factors, such as credit, market, or operational risk, is excluded from the measurement of business risk capital, as those factors are captured under their respective risk capital models.

Reputation and Fiduciary risk

A firm’s success depends not only on its prudent management of credit, market, operational and business risks, but equally on the maintenance of its reputation among many constituents — clients, investors, regulators, as well as the general public — for business practices of the highest quality.

Attention to its reputation has always been a key aspect of the Firm’s practices, and maintenance of reputation is the responsibility of everyone at the Firm. JPMorgan Chase bolsters this individual responsibility in many ways: the Worldwide Rules of Conduct, training, policies and oversight functions that approve transactions. These oversight functions include a Conflicts Office, which examines transactions with the potential to create conflicts of interest or role for the Firm.

In addition, the Firm maintains a Fiduciary Risk Management Committee (“FRMC”) to oversee fiduciary-related risks that may produce significant losses or reputational damage, and that are not covered elsewhere by the corporate risk management oversight structure. The primary goal of the fiduciary risk management function is to ensure that a business, in providing investment or risk management products or services, performs at the appropriate standard relative to its relationship with a client, whether it be fiduciary or nonfiduciary in nature. A particular focus of the FRMC is the policies and practices that address a business’s responsibilities to a client, including the policies and practices that address client suitability determination, disclosure obligations and performance expectations with respect to the investment and risk management products or services being provided. In this way, the FRMC provides oversight of the Firm’s efforts to measure, monitor and control the risks that may arise in the delivery of such products or services to clients, as well as those stemming from its fiduciary responsibilities undertaken on behalf of employees.

The Firm has an additional structure to account for potential adverse effects on its reputation from transactions with clients, especially complex derivatives and structured finance transactions. This structure, implemented in 2002, reinforces the Firm’s procedures for examining transactions in terms of appropriateness, ethical issues and reputational risk, and it intensifies the Firm’s



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

73


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

scrutiny of the purpose and effect of its transactions from the client’s point of view, with the goal that these transactions are not used to mislead investors or others. The structure operates at three levels: as part of every business’s transaction approval process; through review by regional Policy Review Committees; and through oversight by the Policy Review Office.

Business transaction approval

Primary responsibility for adherence to the policies and procedures designed to address reputation risk lies with the business units conducting the transactions in question. The Firm’s transaction approval process requires review and sign-off from, among others, internal legal/compliance, conflicts, tax and accounting policy groups. Transactions involving an SPE established by the Firm receive particular scrutiny and must comply with a Special-Purpose Vehicle Policy, designed to ensure that every such entity is properly approved, documented, monitored and controlled.

Regional policy review committees

Business units are also required to submit to regional Policy Review Committees proposed transactions that may heighten reputation

risk — particularly a client’s motivation and its intended financial disclosure of the transaction. The committees approve, reject or require further clarification on or changes to the transactions. The members of these committees are senior representatives of the business and support units in the region. The committees may escalate transaction review to the Policy Review Office.

Policy Review Office

The Policy Review Office is the most senior approval level for client transactions involving reputation risk issues. The mandate of the Office is to opine on specific transactions brought by the Regional Committees and consider changes in policies or practices relating to reputation risk. The head of the office consults with the Firm’s most senior executives on specific topics and provides regular updates. Aside from governance and guidance on specific transactions, the objective of the policy review process is to reinforce a culture, through a “case study” approach, that ensures that all employees, regardless of seniority, understand the basic principles of reputation risk control and can recognize and address issues as they arise.



 

Private equity risk management

Risk management

JPMP employs processes for risk measurement and control of private equity risk that are similar to those used for other businesses within the Firm. The processes are coordinated with the Firm’s overall approach to market and concentration risk. Private equity risk is initially monitored through the use of industry and geographic limits. Additionally, to manage the pace of new investments, a ceiling on the amount of annual private equity investment activity has been established.

JPMP’s public equity holdings create a significant exposure to general declines in the equity markets. To gauge that risk, VAR and stress-test exposures are calculated in the same way as they are for the Firm’s trading and nontrading portfolios. JPMP management undertakes frequent reviews of its public security holdings as part of a disciplined approach to sales and hedging issues. Hedging programs are limited but are considered when

practical and as circumstances dictate. Over time, the Firm may change the nature and type of hedges it enters into, as well as close hedging positions altogether.

Capital allocation for private equity risk

Internal capital is allocated to JPMP’s public equities portfolio based on stress scenarios which reflect the potential loss inherent in the portfolio in the event of a large equity market decline. Capital is also allocated for liquidity risk, which results from the contractual sales restrictions to which some holdings are subject. For private equities, capital is allocated based on a long-term equity market stress scenario that is consistent with the investment time horizons associated with these holdings. For these investments, additional capital is allocated against the risk of an unexpectedly large number of write-offs or write-downs. The Firm refined its methodology for measuring private equity risk during the second quarter of 2003. It now assigns a moderately higher amount of capital for the risk in the private equity portfolio, most of which is assigned to JPMP.



 

Critical accounting estimates used by the Firm

The Firm’s accounting policies and use of estimates are integral to understanding the reported results. The Firm’s most complex accounting estimates require management’s judgment to ascertain the valuation of assets and liabilities. The Firm has established detailed policies and control procedures intended to ensure valuation methods, including any judgments made as part of such methods, are well controlled, independently reviewed and applied consistently from period to period.

In addition, the policies and procedures are intended to ensure that the process for changing methodologies occurs in an appropriate manner. The Firm believes its estimates for determining the valuation of its assets and liabilities are appropriate.

The following is a brief description of the Firm’s critical accounting estimates involving significant management valuation judgments.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

74


Table of Contents

Allowance for Credit Losses

JPMorgan Chase’s Allowance for credit losses covers the commercial and consumer loan portfolios as well as the Firm’s portfolio of commercial lending-related commitments. The allowance for loan losses is intended to adjust the value of the Firm’s loan assets for probable credit losses as of the balance sheet date in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Management also computes an allowance for lending-related commercial commitments using a methodology similar to that used for the commercial loan portfolio. For a further discussion of the methodologies used in establishing the Firm’s Allowance for credit losses, see Note 12 on page 100 of this Annual Report.

Commercial loans and lending-related commitments

The methodology for calculating both the Allowance for loan losses and the Allowance for lending-related commitments involves significant judgment. First and foremost, it involves the early identification of credits that are deteriorating. Second, it involves management judgment to derive loss factors.

The Firm uses a risk rating system to determine the credit quality of its loans. Commercial loans are reviewed for information affecting the obligor’s ability to fulfill its obligations. In assessing the risk rating of a particular loan, among the factors considered include the obligor’s debt capacity and financial flexibility, the level of the obligor’s earnings, the amount and sources of repayment, the level and nature of contingencies, management strength, and the industry and geography in which the obligor operates. These factors are based on an evaluation of historical information and current information as well as subjective assessment and interpretation. Emphasizing one factor over another or considering additional factors that may be relevant in determining the risk rating of a particular loan, but which are not currently an explicit part of the Firm’s methodology, could impact the risk rating assigned by the Firm to that loan.

Management also applies its judgment to derive loss factors associated with each credit facility. These loss factors are determined by facility structure, collateral and type of obligor. Wherever possible, the Firm uses independent, verifiable data or the Firm’s own historical loss experience in its models for estimating these loss factors. Many factors can affect management’s estimates of specific loss and expected loss, including volatility of default probabilities, rating migrations and loss severity. For example, judgment is required to determine how many years of data to include when estimating the possible severity of the loss. If a full credit cycle is not captured in the data, then estimates may be inaccurate. Likewise, judgment is applied to determine whether the loss-severity factor should be calculated as an average over the entire credit cycle or whether to apply the loss-severity factor implied at a particular point in the credit cycle. The application of different loss-severity factors would change the amount of the allowance for credit losses

determined appropriate by the Firm. Similarly, there are judgments as to which external data on default probabilities should be used, and when they should be used. Choosing data that are not reflective of the Firm’s specific loan portfolio characteristics could affect loss estimates.

As noted above, the Firm’s allowance for loan losses is sensitive to the risk rating assigned to a loan. Assuming a one-notch downgrade in the Firm’s internal risk ratings for all its commercial loans, the allowance for loan losses for the commercial portfolio would increase by approximately $470 million at December 31, 2003. Furthermore, assuming a 10% increase in the loss severity on all downgraded non-criticized loans, the allowance for commercial loans would increase by approximately $50 million at December 31, 2003. These sensitivity analyses are hypothetical and should be used with caution. The purpose of these analyses is to provide an indication of the impact risk ratings and loss severity have on the estimate of the allowance for loan losses for commercial loans. It is not intended to imply management’s expectation of future deterioration in risk ratings or changes in loss severity. Given the process the Firm follows in determining the risk ratings of its loans and assessing loss severity, management believes the risk ratings and loss severities currently assigned to commercial loans are appropriate. Furthermore, the likelihood of a one-notch downgrade for all commercial loans within a short timeframe is remote.

Consumer loans

The consumer portfolio is segmented into three main business lines: Chase Home Finance, Chase Cardmember Services and Chase Auto Finance. For each major portfolio segment within each line of business, there are three primary factors that are considered in determining the expected loss component of the allowance for loan losses: period-end outstandings, expected loss factor and average life. The various components of these factors, such as collateral, prepayment rates, credit score distributions, collections and the historical loss experience of a business segment, differ across business lines. For example, credit card revolving credit has significantly higher charge-off ratios than fixed mortgage credit. Determination of each factor is based primarily on statistical data and macroeconomic assumptions.

Residual component

Management’s judgments are also applied when considering uncertainties that relate to current macroeconomic and political conditions, the impact of currency devaluation on cross-border exposures, changes in underwriting standards, unexpected correlations within the portfolio or other factors. For example, judgment as to political developments in a particular country will affect management’s assessment of potential loss in the credits that have exposure to that country. A separate allowance component, the residual component, is maintained to cover these uncertainties, at December 31, 2003, in the



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

75


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

commercial portfolio. It is anticipated that the residual component will range between 10% and 20% of the total allowance for credit losses.

Fair value of financial instruments

A portion of JPMorgan Chase’s assets and liabilities are carried at fair value, including trading assets and liabilities, AFS securities and private equity investments. Held-for-sale loans and mortgage servicing rights are carried at the lower of fair value or cost. At December 31, 2003, approximately $346 billion of the Firm’s assets were recorded at fair value.

Fair value of a financial instrument is defined as the amount at which the instrument could be exchanged in a current transaction between willing parties, other than in a forced or liquidation sale. The majority of the Firm’s assets reported at fair value are based on quoted market prices or on internally developed models that are based on independently sourced market parameters, including interest rate yield curves, option volatilities and currency rates.

The valuation process takes into consideration factors such as liquidity and concentration concerns and, for the derivative portfolio, counterparty credit risk. See the discussion of CVA on page 59 of this Annual Report. Management applies judgment in determining the factors used in the valuation process. For example, there is often limited market data to rely on when estimating the fair value of a large or aged position. Similarly, judgment must be applied in estimating prices for less readily observable external parameters. Finally, other factors such as model assumptions, market dislocations and unexpected correlations can affect estimates of fair value. Imprecision in estimating these factors can impact the amount of revenue or loss recorded for a particular position.

Trading and available-for-sale portfolios

Substantially all of the Firm’s securities held for trading and investment purposes (“long” positions) and securities that the Firm has sold to other parties but does not own (“short” positions) are valued based on quoted market prices. However, certain securities are less actively traded and, therefore, are not always able to be valued based on quoted market prices. The determination of their fair value requires management judgment, as this determination may require benchmarking to similar instruments or analyzing default and recovery rates.

As few derivative contracts are listed on an exchange, the majority of the Firm’s derivative positions are valued using internally developed models that use as their basis readily observable market parameters — that is, parameters that are actively quoted and can be validated to external sources, including industry-pricing services. Certain derivatives, however, are valued based on models with significant unobservable market parameters — that is, parameters that may be estimated and are, therefore, subject to management judgment to substantiate the model valuation. These instruments are normally either less actively traded or trade activity is one-way. Examples include long-dated interest rate or currency swaps, where swap rates may be unobservable for longer maturities; and certain credit products, where correlation and recovery rates are unobservable.

Management judgment includes recording fair value adjustments (i.e., reductions) to model valuations to account for parameter uncertainty when valuing complex or less actively traded derivative transactions.

The table below summarizes the Firm’s trading and AFS portfolios by valuation methodology at December 31, 2003:



                                         
    Trading assets   Trading liabilities      
    Securities             Securities             AFS  
    purchased(a)     Derivatives(b)     sold(a)     Derivatives(b)     securities  
 
Fair value based on:
                                       
Quoted market prices
    92 %     3 %     94 %     2 %     92 %
Internal models with significant observable market parameters
    7       95       4       96       3  
Internal models with significant unobservable market parameters
    1       2       2       2       5  
 
Total
    100 %     100 %     100 %     100 %     100 %
 
(a)  
Reflected as Debt and equity instruments on the Firm’s Consolidated balance sheet.
(b)  
Based on gross MTM values of the Firm’s derivatives portfolio (i.e., prior to netting positions pursuant to FIN 39), as cross-product netting is not relevant to an analysis based on valuation methodologies.

To ensure that the valuations are appropriate, the Firm has various controls in place. These include: an independent review and approval of valuation models; detailed review and explanation for profit and loss analyzed daily and over time; decomposing the model valuations for certain structured derivative instruments into their components and benchmarking valuations, where possible, to similar products; and validating valuation estimates through actual cash settlement. As markets and products develop and the pricing for certain derivative products becomes

more transparent, the Firm refines its valuation methodologies. The Valuation Control Group within the Finance area is responsible for reviewing the accuracy of the valuations of positions taken within the Investment Bank.

For a discussion of market risk management, including the model review process, see Market Risk Management on pages 66-72 of this Annual Report. For further details regarding the Firm’s valuation methodologies, see Note 31 on pages 120-123 of this Annual Report.



J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

76


Table of Contents

Loans held-for-sale

The fair value of loans in the held-for-sale portfolio is generally based on observable market prices of similar instruments, including bonds, credit derivatives and loans with similar characteristics. If market prices are not available, fair value is based on the estimated cash flows, adjusted for credit risk that is discounted using a rate appropriate for each maturity that incorporates the effects of interest rate changes.

Private equity investments

Valuation of private investments held by JPMP requires significant management judgment due to the absence of quoted market prices, inherent lack of liquidity and long-term nature of such assets. Private investments are initially valued based on cost. The carrying values of private investments are adjusted from cost to reflect both positive and negative changes evidenced by financing events with third-party capital providers. In addition, these investments are subject to ongoing impairment reviews by JPMP’s senior investment professionals. A variety of factors are reviewed and monitored to assess impairment including, but not limited to, operating performance and future expectations, industry valuations of comparable public companies, changes in market outlook and the third-party financing environment over time. The Valuation Control Group within the Finance area is responsible for reviewing the accuracy of the

carrying values of private investments held by JPMP. For additional information about private equity investments, see the Private equity risk management discussion on page 74 and Note 15 on page 106 of this Annual Report.

MSRs and certain other retained interests

MSRs and certain other retained interests from securitization activities do not trade in an active, open market with readily observable prices. For example, sales of MSRs do occur, but the precise terms and conditions are typically not readily available. Accordingly, the Firm estimates the fair value of MSRs and certain other retained interests using a discounted future cash flow model. The model considers portfolio characteristics, contractually specified servicing fees and prepayment assumptions, delinquency rates, late charges, other ancillary revenues, costs to service and other economic factors. The Firm compares its fair value estimates and assumptions to observable market data where available, to recent market activity and to actual portfolio experience. Management believes that the fair values and related assumptions are comparable to those used by other market participants. For a further discussion of the most significant assumptions used to value these retained interests, as well as the applicable stress tests for those assumptions, see Notes 13 and 16 on pages 100-103 and 107-109, respectively, of this Annual Report.



 

Nonexchange-traded commodity contracts at fair value

In the normal course of business, JPMorgan Chase trades nonex-change-traded commodity contracts. To determine the fair value of these contracts, the Firm uses various fair value estimation techniques, which are primarily based on internal models with significant observable market parameters. The Firm’s nonex-

change-traded commodity contracts are primarily energy-related contracts. The following table summarizes the changes in fair value for nonexchange-traded commodity contracts for the year ended December 31, 2003:



                 
For the year ended December 31, 2003 (in millions)   Asset position     Liability position  
 
Net fair value of contracts outstanding at January 1, 2003
  $ 1,938     $ 839  
Effect of legally enforceable master netting agreements
    1,279       1,289  
 
           
Gross fair value of contracts outstanding at January 1, 2003
    3,217       2,128  
Contracts realized or otherwise settled during the period
    (2,559 )     (2,465 )
Fair value of new contracts
    303       291  
Changes in fair values attributable to changes in valuation techniques and assumptions
           
Other changes in fair value
    1,370       1,716  
 
           
Gross fair value of contracts outstanding at December 31, 2003
    2,331       1,670  
Effect of legally enforceable master netting agreements
    (834 )     (919 )
 
           
Net fair value of contracts outstanding at December 31, 2003
  $ 1,497     $ 751  
 
           
 

The following table indicates the schedule of maturities of nonexchange-traded commodity contracts at December 31, 2003:

                 
At December 31, 2003 (in millions)   Asset position     Liability position  
 
Maturity less than 1 year
  $ 842     $ 901  
Maturity 1-3 years
    1,128       550  
Maturity 4-5 years
    356       212  
Maturity in excess of 5 years
    5       7  
 
           
Gross fair value of contracts outstanding at December 31, 2003
    2,331       1,670  
Effects of legally enforceable master netting agreements
    (834 )     (919 )
 
           
Net fair value of contracts outstanding at December 31, 2003
  $ 1,497     $ 751  
 
           
 

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

77


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Accounting and reporting developments

Accounting for stock-based compensation

Effective January 1, 2003, JPMorgan Chase adopted SFAS 123, which establishes the accounting for stock-based compensation and requires that all such transactions, including stock options, be accounted for at fair value and be recognized in earnings. Awards outstanding as of December 31, 2002, if not subsequently modified, continue to be accounted for under APB 25. For a further discussion on the adoption of SFAS 123, see Note 7 on pages 93-95 of this Annual Report.

Consolidation of variable interest entities

In January 2003, the FASB issued FIN 46. Entities that would be assessed for consolidation under FIN 46 are typically referred to as Special-Purpose Entities (“SPEs”), although non-SPE-type entities may also be subject to the guidance. FIN 46 requires a variable interest entity (“VIE”) to be consolidated by a company if that company is subject to a majority of the risk of loss from the variable interest entity’s activities or entitled to receive a majority of the entity’s residual returns, or both. Effective February 1, 2003, the Firm implemented FIN 46 for VIEs created or modified after January 31, 2003, in which the Firm has an interest.

Effective July 1, 2003, the Firm adopted the provisions of FIN 46 for all VIEs originated prior to February 1, 2003, excluding certain investments made by JPMP. The FASB provided a specific deferral for nonregistered investment companies until the proposed Statement of Position on the clarification of the scope of the Investment Company Audit Guide is finalized, which is expected to occur in mid-2004. The Firm has deferred consolidation of $2.7 billion of additional assets related to JPMP as of December 31, 2003. For further details regarding FIN 46, refer to Note 14 on pages 103-106 of this Annual Report.

In December 2003, the FASB issued a revision to FIN 46 (“FIN 46R”) to address various technical corrections and implementation issues that have arisen since its issuance. The provisions of FIN 46R are effective for financial periods ending after March 15, 2004, thus the Firm will implement the new provisions effective March 31, 2004. As FIN 46R was recently issued and contains provisions that the accounting profession continues to analyze, the Firm’s assessment of the impact of FIN 46R on all VIEs with which it is involved is ongoing. However, at this time and based on management’s current interpretation, the Firm does not believe that the implementation of FIN 46R will have a material impact on the Firm’s Consolidated financial statements, earnings or capital resources.

Accounting for certain financial instruments with characteristics of both liabilities and equity

In May 2003, the FASB issued SFAS 150, which establishes standards for how an issuer classifies and measures in its statement of financial position certain financial instruments with characteristics of both liabilities and equity. It requires that an issuer classi-

fy a financial instrument that is within its scope as a liability (or an asset in some circumstances), because that financial instrument embodies an obligation of the issuer. Initially, SFAS 150 was effective for all financial instruments entered into or modified after May 31, 2003, and was otherwise effective beginning July 1, 2003. In November 2003, the FASB deferred the effective date of the statement with respect to mandatorily redeemable financial instruments of certain nonpublic entities and for certain mandatorily redeemable noncontrolling interests. The implementation of SFAS