Annual Report 2003 PDF

ANNUAL REPORT 2003
delivering results:
Financial highlights
As of or for the year ended December 31,

(in millions, except per share and ratio data) 2003 2002 2001
Reported basis
Revenue $ 33,256 $ 29,614 $ 29,344
Noninterest expense (excluding merger
and restructuring costs) 21,688 21,554 21,073
Merger and restructuring costs — 1,210 2,523
Provision for credit losses 1,540 4,331 3,182
Net income 6,719 1,663 1,694
Net income per share:
Basic 3.32 0.81 0.83
Diluted 3.24 0.80 0.80
Cash dividends declared per share 1.36 1.36 1.36
Total assets 770,912 758,800 693,575
Total stockholders’ equity 46,154 42,306 41,099
Tier 1 capital ratio 8.5% 8.2% 8.3%
Total capital ratio 11.8 12.0 11.9
Tier 1 leverage ratio 5.6 5.1 5.2
Operating basis(a)
Revenue $ 35,126 $ 31,053 $ 30,392
Earnings 6,719 3,384 3,802
Shareholder value added 1,509 (1,631) (1,247)
Return on average common equity 16% 8% 9%
Overhead ratio 62 65 67
(a) Includes credit card receivables that have been securitized. Amounts shown prior to 2003 exclude
merger and restructuring costs, and special items. For a further discussion, see Basis of presentation
on page 27 of this Annual Report.
ON THE COVER: Eileen Liu is just one of the more than 93,000 JPMorgan Chase skilled professionals, based in
more than 50 countries around the world, who helped the firm deliver results in 2003. Employee team photos
appear throughout the Annual Report to help illustrate some of the year's significant accomplishments.
delivering results:
Market leaders are results leaders. A truly top-tier firm does more
than make markets or serve customers. It delivers – value to
shareholders, solutions to clients, and capital to the markets and
communities in which it conducts business.
JPMorgan Chase, a global market leader, is driven to produce
results. We enjoy deep, varied expertise across multiple areas of
the firm and fuse it for the benefit of our clients. When we collab-
orate – harnessing our combined ideas, experience and resources
– the results are powerful. We collaborate with clients to under-
stand their multifaceted needs, and with communities to support
their development and prosperity.
In 2003, our relentless focus on disciplined business improve-
ments brought out the best at every level of the firm. The results
reported here strengthened our leadership positions in our core
businesses and have positioned us for sustainable growth.
Dear fellow shareholders
The announced J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. merger with Bank One
On January 14, 2004, we announced our decision to merge with Bank One. We are excited about the
merger, and although it does not affect our results for 2003, I wanted to begin my report to you with an
overview of our new firm.
This merger will create a firm with leadership positions in both wholesale and retail, a more balanced
earnings stream, greater scale and financial strength. From both a strategic and a people perspective, we
believe the combination is complementary and compelling. We were pleased that the rating agencies
reacted favorably after the announcement of the merger.
For 2003, the firms combined would have earned over $9 billion. The earnings, on a combined basis,
would have been almost evenly split between wholesale businesses and retail. The merger will further
strengthen our existing leadership positions in wholesale banking, providing even greater scale in terms
of both clients and capital. In retail banking, we will be the second-largest U.S. credit card issuer and
the second-largest U.S. bank based upon core deposits, with assets of over $1 trillion. From coast to
coast, we will provide mortgages, auto loans and credit cards, and welcome customers into more than
2,300 bank branches in 17 states.
Our new firm will have a complete financial services platform, providing the full range of retail and
wholesale products. We anticipate the merger will close by mid-year 2004, and you can expect more
information in the near future regarding our shareholder meeting. The bottom line is that we believe
the new J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. will create tremendous shareholder value in 2004 and beyond.
2 J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report

Against the backdrop of an improving economy and a favorable turn
in the credit cycle, JPMorgan Chase outperformed its peers by most
measures. Among major investment and commercial banks, we ranked
first in total return to shareholders.
2003 year in review The Investment Bank’s impressive showing was driven by strong
equity underwriting, increased capital markets revenues, and record
In 2003, our focus was on delivering results. As I said in the closing
total return revenues in Global Treasury.
words of my 2002 letter to shareholders, “We have the right model,
the right strategy, and the right people . . . What we need now is better Our success in 2003 was also based upon our intellectual capital,
performance and improved execution. That will be the unrelenting innovation and expertise in risk management. It is our ability to under-
focus of JPMorgan Chase in 2003.” stand our clients’ needs and then execute extraordinarily well that
helps us win in the marketplace. A very good example of our client focus
Our focus on results was evident in our much improved financial
is our creation of the first-ever transferable employee stock option
performance.
program for Microsoft.
On an operating basis in 2003, we delivered:
In terms of the outlook for the Investment Bank, we are well positioned
• Higher revenues – up 13% from 2002, to $35.1 billion for the next phase of the economic cycle. From 2002 to 2003, we
• Higher earnings – $6.7 billion, compared with $3.4 billion in 2002 moved from #8 to #4 in Global Equity and Equity-Related, and we
maintained our #5 position in Global Announced M&A while increasing
• A return on average common equity of 16%, compared with
our market share. We also continued to rank #1 in Interest Rate and
8% in 2002
Credit Derivatives as well as in Global Loan Syndications. Even with the
Against the backdrop of an improving economy and a favorable turn anticipated shift in market activity, we believe our fixed income
in the credit cycle, JPMorgan Chase outperformed its peers by most businesses will continue to flourish. More than half of our revenues
measures. Among major investment and commercial banks, we ranked are from investor clients who regularly need to adjust their portfolios.
first in total return to shareholders. We strengthened our leadership This activity creates a solid foundation for ongoing business and
positions in key product areas across all of our businesses. We delivered continued growth.
greater value, in more ways, to a growing number of clients.
We are a truly global investment bank, delivering the breadth of the
Throughout 2003, JPMorgan Chase also recognized the need to firm’s capabilities – tailored to the needs of clients in local markets.
rebuild trust in financial institutions, including our own. We revised We continue to perform well in the Europe, Middle East and Africa
and enhanced our internal risk management processes and policies, (EMEA) region, where the Investment Bank generated approximately
providing better oversight of complex financial transactions and $1.3 billion in after-tax earnings. We are the only firm in the EMEA
greater transparency in our financial disclosures. We have also region to finish 2003 ranked #5 or better across the equity, M&A, loan
embraced new regulations in the U.S. from Congress, the Securities and bond markets. We want to be the most global of the European
and Exchange Commission and the New York Stock Exchange investment banks, and the most European of the global investment
strengthening governance. banks. We enjoy strong leadership positions in Latin America, and our
franchise in Asia presents significant growth opportunities for us.
I want to take this opportunity to thank Larry Fuller, who has retired
from the Board of Directors, for his contributions to our firm since 1985. With the completeness and scale of our capabilities, a commitment
We have benefited greatly from the wisdom and experience of our to innovation, and a client franchise that includes strong relationships
board members, and we wish Larry well. with over 90% of Fortune 500 companies and equivalent global
penetration, the Investment Bank is well positioned to compete at
Here is a look at how our major businesses performed in 2003.
the highest level around the world.
The Investment Bank demonstrated the value of its global scale,
Treasury & Securities Services (TSS), which provides financial
diverse issuer and investor client franchise, and integrated business
transaction processing and information services to wholesale clients,
model to deliver a record $3.7 billion in earnings. We achieved
delivered attractive returns in 2003, generating an ROE of 19%.
significant gains in revenues (up 16%) and substantial reductions
Though affected by the downturn in capital markets and low interest
in credit costs, resulting in a gain in earnings of 183% and a
rates, TSS has provided a stable source of revenue year after year,
return on equity (ROE) of 19% for the year.
taking full advantage of its global scale, technological sophistication
and market leadership. Each of the three TSS businesses – Treasury
Services, Investor Services and Institutional Trust Services – is among
the top three in the world.
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report 3

I believe that a high-performance culture is the critical differentiator
that separates the great enterprises from those that are merely good,
and that separates enduring success from transitory achievement.
We remain committed to extending those leadership positions. Two standards. Chase Cardmember Services grew outstandings despite
recent acquisitions – an electronic payments subsidiary of Citigroup and balance paydowns due to consumer liquidity resulting from the mortgage
Bank One’s corporate trust business – are expected to enhance consid- refinancing boom. Chase Auto Finance also had a record number of
erably TSS’s revenue growth rate in 2004. (It is important to note that originations and increased its market share.
Bank One sold its trust business because it lacked the scale and global
In addition to our national consumer credit businesses, our other CFS
scope that JPMorgan Chase has in this business.) TSS will continue
businesses – Chase Regional Banking and Chase Middle Market – have
to drive for greater scale, productivity gains and higher service quality
shown significant growth in deposits, up 8% and 17% respectively,
levels to maintain its market leadership.
despite the low interest rate environment, which compressed spreads,
Investment Management & Private Banking (IMPB) showed reducing revenue for the year.
strong momentum in 2003, generating earnings of $268 million. Pre-tax
In the still fragmented retail banking industry, CFS’s businesses focused
margins improved significantly throughout the year and assets under
on competitive differentiators, such as productivity and marketing
supervision increased 18% to $758 billion. During the year, IMPB made
enhancements. We have seen gains from disciplined expense manage-
substantial progress in its execution on three key goals. Investment
ment and from greater efficiency. CFS has also boosted the quality of
performance improved, particularly in key U.S. institutional equity and
its marketing efforts, resulting in progress in cross-selling products
fixed income products. The Private Bank successfully executed its
and services. We invested in businesses such as home equity, where we
growth strategy as client assets and product usage increased year over
achieved significant increases in outstandings. Personal Financial
year. Additionally, credit costs were lowered by nearly 60% compared
Services, our branch-based business offering banking and investing services
to 2002. And lastly, IMPB advanced its U.S. retail strategy by acquiring
to upper-tier retail customers, continues to gain momentum, having
full ownership of J.P. Morgan | American Century Retirement Plan
increased new investment fee-based sales by 63% and bringing assets
Services with $41 billion in 401(k) plan assets. Aligning Retirement Plan
under management to a total of $10.7 billion.
Services and BrownCo, our online brokerage service, to build an IRA
roll-over capability positions IMPB well to benefit from the growing In 2004, CFS expects to operate at lower but still robust ROE levels,
individual retirement market. caused by our expectation that the mortgage business will return to
more normal conditions. CFS will focus on stable credit quality,
JPMorgan Partners (JPMP), our private equity business, has invested
productivity gains, innovative marketing and cross-selling initiatives,
in a wide range of companies in diverse sectors, stages and locations.
and continued investment in growth opportunities to improve its
JPMP’s primary investment vehicle is its $6.5 billion Global Fund, which
competitive position.
invests on behalf of the firm and third-party investors. JPMP’s financial
performance improved substantially over the year. In 2004 and beyond,
JPMP should benefit from a continued recovery in equity financing Disciplined risk management
and M&A activities.
The improvement in our performance was enhanced by better execution
Chase Financial Services (CFS), our retail and middle market in risk management.
businesses, improved upon their very strong 2002 results with record
In the two years following the merger that created JPMorgan Chase
revenues and earnings in 2003, producing an ROE of 28%.
(that is, in 2001 and 2002), our performance suffered from three main
As the result of its focus on national consumer credit businesses, CFS challenges, none of them principally related to the merger: excessive
has established a unique franchise that has enabled it to deliver strong capital committed to private equity; over-concentration of loans to
results. It is a market leader in all three major national consumer credit telecommunications companies; and large exposure to Enron.
businesses – the only top-five performer across mortgage origination
We dealt decisively with each issue in 2003. We reduced our exposure
and servicing, credit cards and auto finance.
to private equity to 15% of the firm’s common stockholders’ equity
Chase Home Finance had a record year in 2003, coming off excellent at the end of 2003 (down from a peak of 29% in 2000). We moved
results in 2002. On all fronts, Home Finance took advantage of the to put Enron behind us through the settlement that our firm and
mortgage boom, resulting in an increase in revenues of 38% over others reached in 2003 with the Securities and Exchange Commission
2002. The quality of execution was key to its success, as the business and other regulatory and governmental entities. We reduced commercial
managed record volumes while maintaining high customer service credit exposure and drove substantial reductions in single-name and
industry concentrations.

We are beginning to recognize the power and potential of our great
strategic platform. Clearly, our clients and customers like the value we
add in both our wholesale and retail businesses.
Commercial criticized exposure (rated CCC+/Caa1 and lower) and and completeness, and we remain focused on integrated delivery to
non-performing loans were both down over 45% from the beginning serve our clients well. There is ample room for organic growth and
of the year. Our provision for commercial credit losses was down by development in providing premier global wholesale financial services.
$2.8 billion. The risk profile of the firm has improved, and our bottom In other areas, such as Institutional Trust Services, we may choose to
line results are much better. augment our skills through tactical acquisitions. For the most part,
however, our wholesale banking business will grow through better
execution in delivering the whole firm to a highly sophisticated and
Building a great culture
global client base at multiple points of need.
I believe that a high-performance culture is the critical differentiator
The retail banking landscape presents a different picture. It is large
that separates the great enterprises from those that are merely good,
and still relatively fragmented, even after a decade of consolidation.
and that separates enduring success from transitory achievement.
Almost certainly, consolidation will continue and gather pace in years
Business units continued to emphasize increased productivity and to come. With Bank One, we will significantly extend our retail finan-
improved quality. In 2003, our productivity and quality efforts yielded cial services platform and be better positioned to take advantage of
more than $1 billion pre-tax in net financial benefits, more than dou- the enormous opportunities before us.
bling those achieved in 2002. Over one-half of these benefits came
The strategic model we have adopted, with extensive leadership positions
from re-engineering key business processes using the disciplined meth-
in both wholesale and retail financial services, provides great balance
odology of Six Sigma. We used Six Sigma in several key areas, includ-
to our growth, returns and diversification.
ing enhancing our customers’ experience and removing costs from our
larger and more complex operations.
Confidence in the future
The challenge has been the blending of key attributes of the cultures
of our predecessor firms into a new model. We are focused on develop- With the strategic platform we created three years ago, the merger with
ing a culture based on integrity, respect, excellence and innovation, Bank One, and the progress we have made toward building a high-
where diversity and differences are recognized and valued, and leader- performance culture, we have to prove that we can consistently produce
ship development and managing talent are hallmarks of our firm. superior results, and that we are disciplined in how we use our capital.
Our work on establishing a high-performance culture will continue as We also have to demonstrate a seamless integration with Bank One
we complete the merger with Bank One. so that we add value from day one.
The firm’s efforts to build a strong culture have also focused on encour- I have every confidence that we can accomplish these goals.
aging a spirit of giving back to the communities where we live and
In 2004 as in 2003, the unrelenting focus of our firm will be on results
do business. We are proud that the firm has maintained a consistent
and performance.
“outstanding” Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rating, and we are
committed to partnering with our communities around the world to
make a positive difference. Our employees have developed a great
spirit of giving back, not just in monetary terms, but also through volun-
teering their time and talents to their communities. William B. Harrison, Jr.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
March 15, 2004
2004: Still about strategy and delivering results
We are beginning to recognize the power and potential of our great
strategic platform. Clearly, our clients and customers like the value we
add in both our wholesale and retail businesses.
In wholesale banking, our capabilities reach across all important product

sets, clients and locations – from the Americas to Europe, Asia, the
Middle East and Africa. We have the competitive advantage of scale

results:
on corporate governance
Board of Directors
Hans W. Becherer John H. Biggs Ellen V. Futter Helene L. Kaplan

Retired Chairman Former Chairman and President and Trustee Of Counsel
and Chief Executive Officer Chief Executive Officer American Museum Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Deere & Company Teachers Insurance of Natural History Meagher & Flom LLP
and Annuity Association-
Riley P. Bechtel College Retirement William H. Gray, III Lee R. Raymond
Chairman and Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF) President and Chairman of the Board
Chief Executive Officer Chief Executive Officer and Chief Executive Officer
Bechtel Group, Inc. Lawrence A. Bossidy The College Fund/UNCF Exxon Mobil Corporation
Frank A. Bennack, Jr. Retired Chairman
Honeywell International Inc. William B. Harrison, Jr. John R. Stafford
Chairman of the Chairman and Retired Chairman
Executive Committee and M. Anthony Burns Chief Executive Officer of the Board
Vice Chairman of the Board Chairman Emeritus Wyeth
The Hearst Corporation Ryder System, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase believes in strong corporate Based on its work in 2003, in January 2004 the board approved
governance practices, starting with the Board of revisions to its corporate governance practices and committee charters.
These are available at the firm’s website, www.jpmorganchase.com.
Directors and continuing throughout the firm. The board’s new structure and practices address the following:
Board governance • effective size: The current Board of Directors has 12 members.
Following the merger, the board will have 16 members, eight from
The Board of Directors focused on corporate governance issues
Bank One and eight from JPMorgan Chase.
throughout 2003 and plans to continue this focus as part of the
integration process in the firm’s proposed merger with Bank One. • a super-majority of non-management directors: There is currently
The board of the post-merger company will seek to bring the one management member on the JPMorgan Chase board, William
best of both predecessors to the combined firm’s corporate Harrison. Following the merger, only two management members
governance practices. will be on the board, Mr. Harrison and James Dimon.
During 2003, the board reviewed its corporate governance practices • director independence:
and committee charters in light of SEC-approved New York Stock independent directors: Each of the non-management directors of
Exchange listing standards, applicable regulatory requirements and JPMorgan Chase was determined by the board to be independent
best practices. In November, the board spent a full day discussing in accordance with board standards that consider past and current
corporate governance issues with leading experts. Topics covered employment relationships; any business relationships with or
included risk management, financial disclosure, audit quality, the role charitable contributions to entities at which a director serves as
of the compensation committee, fiduciary duties of directors, the an officer; and personal banking and other financial relationships,
board evaluation process and the integrity of the U.S. financial markets. which must be on an arm’s-length basis.
executive sessions of directors: Directors meet periodically without
management. Additionally, non-management directors meet in
executive session, without management directors, at least twice a
year: once to review the CEO’s performance, and once to review
the board and its corporate governance practices.
access to outside resources: Although the main responsibility
for providing assistance to the board rests with management,
the board and board committees can engage outside expert
advice from sources independent of management at the expense
of the firm.

Governance was an important consideration in JPMorgan Chase’s Primary responsibility for adherence to the policies and procedures
proposed merger with Bank One. The post-merger board structure designed to address reputation risk lies with business units, which
described above was intended to provide for continuity within are also required to submit, to regional Policy Review Committees,
change. The chair of the Governance Committee of JPMorgan Chase proposed transactions that may heighten reputation risk. The com-
and the chair of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Com- mittees may approve, reject or require further clarification of or
mittee of Bank One will lead efforts within their respective boards to changes to the transactions, or they may escalate the review to the
determine the continuing directors from each respective board, who most senior level of review, the Policy Review Office. The objective of
in turn will form the board of the post-merger company. The result the policy review process is to reinforce a culture that ensures that
of this process will be a highly independent and competent board all employees understand the basic principles of reputation risk con-
providing oversight and direction for the merged company. trol and recognizes and addresses issues as they arise. For a further
description of the policy review process, see the discussion of Reput-
Internal governance ation and Fiduciary risk starting at page 73 of this Annual Report.
JPMorgan Chase is a large, complex enterprise with multiple lines of The firm has two codes of conduct, one applying to all employees
business and a large number of subsidiaries within and outside the and a supplementary code that applies to senior executive and
United States. Each of the firm’s businesses and subsidiaries must be senior financial officers. The Worldwide Rules of Conduct, a code of
operated in compliance with the laws and regulations applicable to conduct and business ethics, is applicable to all employees and, as
it. While governance begins with the Board of Directors, managing modified by applicable addenda, to directors. In 2003, the firm added
the enterprise requires effective governance structures and practices a Code of Ethics for senior executive and senior financial officers to
throughout the organization. underscore the importance of ethical conduct and compliance with
The firm as a whole manages by line of business, supported by the law, particularly as it relates to the maintenance of the firm’s
global policies and standards that typically apply to all relevant units financial books and records and the preparation of its financial state-
regardless of geography or legal structure. The strength of these ments. A copy of the Worldwide Rules is available by contacting
global control processes is the foundation of regional and individual the Office of the Secretary. The Code of Ethics for senior executive
subsidiary governance. Three examples of the firm’s global processes officers and senior financial officers is available at the firm’s website.
and standards are its risk management structure, policy review
process and codes of conduct. Alignment with shareholders
Defined risk governance is a principle of risk management at Good corporate governance requires that compensation policies
JPMorgan Chase. The Board of Directors exercises oversight of align with shareholder interests. JPMorgan Chase’s compensation
risk management through the board as a whole and through the policy for executive officers emphasizes performance-based pay over
board’s Risk Policy and Audit Committees. The charters of these fixed salary and uses equity-based awards to align the interests of
and other board committees are available at the firm’s website executive officers with shareholders. Members of the Office of the
(www.jpmorganchase.com). The board delegates the formulation Chairman and other members of the firm’s Executive Committee are
of policy and day-to-day risk oversight and management to the required to retain 75% of the net shares of stock received from stock
Office of the Chairman and to two corporate risk committees, grants and options (after deductions for taxes and options exercise
the Capital Committee and the Risk Management Committee. The costs). The board believes it is desirable that a significant portion of
Office of the Chairman is responsible for the formulation of major overall director compensation be linked to JPMorgan Chase stock;
policies and the review of major risk exposures. The Capital Com- the board’s total compensation includes approximately one-third
mittee focuses on capital planning, internal capital allocation and cash and two-thirds stock-based compensation in the form of share
liquidity management. The focus of the Risk Management Com- equivalents that must be held until a director’s termination of service.
mittee includes, among others, credit risk, market risk and opera- In 2002, the firm committed to expense stock options beginning
tional risk. A discussion of Risk and Capital management begins in January 2003. The firm made this commitment in partnership with
at page 45 of this Annual Report. other large, diversified financial services firms, in the belief that
The policy review process is based on the recognition that a firm’s investors should expect consistency across the industry. For a descrip-
success depends not only on its prudent management of the risks tion of employee stock-based incentives and the expensing of stock
mentioned above, but equally on the maintenance of its reputation options, see Note 7 beginning on page 93 of this Annual Report.
for business practices of the highest quality, among many constituents
– clients, investors, and regulators, as well as the general public.

From left to right:
David A. Coulter, Vice Chairman
Investment Bank, Investment
Management & Private Banking;
William B. Harrison, Chairman
and CEO, Chairman of the
Executive Committee;
Donald H. Layton, Vice Chairman
Chase Financial Services, Treasury &
Securities Services, Technology
After the tumult of 2001 and 2002, many David, Wall Street began to show renewed Don, Chase Financial Services had such a
who look back at 2003 will call it a transi- vitality in 2003. How did JPMorgan’s whole- great year in 2002 – with profits up 64% –
tional year for JPMorgan Chase and the sale businesses deliver for clients last year – that market expectations were that profits in
broader market. Bill, how well do you think particularly across products? 2003 would decrease. What was behind
the firm did overall, in sticking to its core Simply put, our success results from our their further increase in 2003?
goals and executing against them? integrated business model. We have a diverse The record performance at Chase Home
We drove superior results by executing con- and global issuer and investor client franchise. Finance cannot be overstated and was defi-
sistently on our strategy. The way you succeed Our scale, completeness and ability to inno- nitely the biggest driver. I also would high-
in challenging, ever-changing markets is to vate allow us to provide our clients with light the growth of our best-in-class auto
have, first, depth of product and expertise; integrated advice and solutions to meet their finance business. The credit card business
second, leadership positions across your needs. You saw it in our transaction with will more than double in size with the Bank
businesses; and third, integrated delivery. In Microsoft, the first-ever transferable employee One merger, giving us the leading scale so
2003 we demonstrated significant progress stock option program. You also saw it in the important to success in the card industry.
on all of these fronts. And importantly, we new instruments we structured for our Our deposit-intensive businesses were, of
did this while dramatically reducing concen- investor clients, such as equity default swaps
course, depressed by the year’s ultra-low
trations and risk in our credit and private and equity collateralized obligations – a new
interest rates. The fundamental strength of
equity portfolios. asset class. And you saw it in solutions we
these franchises was shown by Middle
developed for our sophisticated private bank-
Market still increasing profits slightly due to
ing and investment management clients.
superb credit performance, and Regional
These solutions reflect, respond to and even
anticipate client needs. Banking growing deposits strongly, which
positions us well for the future.
results:
what they mean to us
Chairman William B. Harrison and Vice Chairmen David A. Coulter and Donald H. Layton talk about
what shaped the firm’s results for 2003 and prospects for the future.
Don, the last couple of years have set the David, with markets rebounding and firms As liquidity and stability return to the finan-
bar very high for the retail businesses. How bracing for a renewed flurry of client cial markets, Bill, how do you see JPMorgan
can we build upon this success and sustain activity, how will the wholesale businesses Chase maintaining its leadership and beating
growth into the future? look to not only capitalize but also build the benchmarks?
The return to normalcy in the mortgage on their strengths? Now that we’ve delivered significantly
industry, with the refinancing wave abating, It’s all about leveraging our competitive improved performance across the board, we
will allow the credit card industry to return advantage. We will focus our investments enter 2004 in a position of strength: number
to its traditional levels of revenue growth, in where we believe we have competitive one, two or three in each of our major
which we will participate from a position advantages and market economics are business segments. And with the Bank One
of strength, enhanced by our merger. And, attractive, and we will recycle capital from merger, we have the scale and business
not incidentally, we will still be a top-ranked areas that are not as attractive. We believe mix to be a market leader.
player in a mortgage business that continues we are the most integrated firm – with some The merger will bring benefits to both our
to be very strong, even if off from its height. 8,000 wholesale clients worldwide, our issuer clients and our shareholders. The union of
Chase Auto Finance has incredible long-term and investor franchises have never been our commercial and investment banking
momentum in growing share and therefore broader or deeper. This is a reflection of our franchise with Bank One’s huge consumer
profits. And with interest rate declines over, leadership and a tremendous competitive banking presence gives us an even broader
our deposit-intensive businesses, regional advantage as we look to capture an ever- platform from which to serve the client. Also,
banking and middle market, will be translat- greater share of our clients’ business. the merger creates a more balanced firm
ing their recent strong deposit volume growth with more consistent earnings, which we feel
into revenue and profit improvement. can only enhance shareholder value.
results:
delivering for clients
We deliver value to our shareholders by delivering for our clients. Clients come to JPMorgan Chase
with financial problems that have broad implications, not only for their entire organizations but for the
financial markets themselves. Problems like these require innovative solutions – meeting unprecedented
levels of consumer demand for financing, and helping companies grow. The right solution is more
than effective, it is transformational: turning growing companies into global leaders, endowing leading
companies with eminent influence.
Capitalizing on expanding markets: Ripplewood Holdings

Ripplewood Holdings’ acquisition of Japan Telecom Co Ltd. – Asia’s largest-ever LBO transac-
tion – was a milestone in the development of the region’s leveraged buyout market. JPMorgan
Chase’s advisory and financing role in this transaction was critical to Ripplewood’s completion
of the acquisition and underscores the firm’s leadership in the region.
JPMorgan served as the financial advisor to U.S.-based Ripplewood, one of the leading private
equity investors in Japan. The firm also served as lead arranger for the acquisition financing.
The highly visible transaction was not only an enormous landmark for the market, it also
contributed to an improvement in the Asian financial markets.
Supporting client goals: Panamerican Beverages, Inc.

Continuing a long-standing, multifaceted relationship with Panamerican Beverages, Inc.
(Panamco), JPMorgan acted as the Latin American bottler’s exclusive financial advisor in a
landmark transaction.
Panamco was acquired by Coca-Cola FEMSA in the largest transaction ever in the Mexican
beverage sector. The landmark sale solidified Panamco’s leadership in the consolidating
global beverage industry and created the leading bottler of Coca-Cola products in Latin
America and the second-largest Coca-Cola bottler in the world.
Meeting unparalleled demand: Chase Home Finance

The 2003 U.S. real estate and home-finance markets were best described as explosive. Remarkably
strong new-home construction starts, combined with plummeting interest rates, encouraged
first-time home buyers not only to make purchases but also to raise the bar on their spending
parameters. Existing homeowners added to the critical mass by fueling a record-setting
refinancing boom.
Client demand for mortgage services skyrocketed, and Chase Home Finance ramped up operations
to meet the need. Applications for the year totaled more than $295 billion – in particular, the
month of June produced an all-time high. Total revenues for the year exceeded $4 billion, up 38%
over 2002 levels.

Realizing client vision: News Corp.
In a complex transaction that reshaped the U.S. media landscape, News Corp., assisted by
JPMorgan, acquired a 34% interest in Hughes Electronics. The $6.6 billion purchase comple-
mented News Corp.’s existing global pay-TV platform with a significant U.S. presence.
Following the acquisition, the media giant became the second-largest provider of pay-TV
service in the U.S., with more than 11 million subscribers.
As one of the leading providers of banking and advisory services to News Corp., JPMorgan
was the natural choice to advise on this landmark transaction.
Creating innovative solutions: Microsoft

Market reaction was swift and enthusiastic when JPMorgan announced a groundbreaking
solution enabling Microsoft to offer its employees cash for stock options that had no market
value – without incurring cost to the company.
Microsoft management and employees, Wall Street analysts and leaders of other companies
all applauded this novel transaction, which allowed Microsoft employees to sell their
“underwater” stock options to JPMorgan. Fully half of all eligible employees subscribed to
the offer, resulting in the largest equity derivative or option sale ever executed.
This was a one-of-a-kind transaction. The offering incorporated solutions for complex
legal, tax and accounting issues. Consequently, JPMorgan is seeking U.S. patent
protection on the concept and process.
Setting a global benchmark: KfW

When Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau (KfW), a German government development
agency, decided to issue an equity-linked bond offering, it selected JPMorgan
as one of two bookrunners. The € 5 billion offering proved to be the
largest of its kind by any issuer globally. This landmark transaction
by JPMorgan’s EMEA equity business confirmed JPMorgan’s
position as the #1 equity-linked house.
11
results:
collaborating across businesses
Delivering outstanding results requires partnership – with clients and with colleagues. A truly effective firm
possesses expertise across all functions, and integrates those functions seamlessly. JPMorgan Chase boasts this
winning combination: deep, varied expertise, residing in multiple areas of the firm, fused for the benefit of our
clients. When we partner across business units – harnessing our combined ideas, experience, knowledge and
resources – the results are powerful. Exponential benefits accrue: to our clients, who get comprehensive and
innovative solutions; to our employees, who continually broaden their knowledge and stimulate their creativity;
and to our firm, which fortifies its leadership across markets, solidifying its position as the full-service financial
firm of choice.
Mobilizing wide-ranging expertise: acquisition of ProSiebenSat.1

The acquisition of leading German television broadcaster ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG required
a far-reaching suite of services. JPMorgan Chase helped provide those services to an investor
group headed by Saban Capital Group Inc. and including Bain Capital, LLC, Hellman &
Friedman LLC, Thomas H. Lee Company, Providence Equity Partners Inc., Quadrangle Group
LLC and Alpine Equity Partners L.P.
Based on relationships with the JPMorgan Private Bank, the investor group called upon the
firm’s Investment Bank for financial advice. This complex transaction called for proven exper-
tise in mergers and acquisitions, debt and equity origination, private equity, foreign exchange
and banking and operational services, as well as in-depth knowledge of the U.S., U.K. and
German regulatory and industry environments.
JPMorgan delivered high-quality advice and execution on multiple fronts, enabling the clients
to complete this highly complex transaction in a short timeframe.
Building unique service combinations: Asia Pacific financial institution

No fewer than 12 JPMorgan Chase businesses, involving six legal entities in five countries,
came together in record time to create a unique, customized global service for one of the
largest investors in the world.
Based in Asia Pacific, this financial institution required a broad array of advisory and execution
services. In structuring this solution, JPMorgan drew upon the expertise in its Investment Bank,
particularly the Credit and Rates group, as well as Treasury & Securities Services, in several
locations around the world.
The unique solution the firm provided combined existing services in a way that has not yet been
replicated by any competitor. The firm secured an agreement to manage a portfolio of more
than $8 billion.
Accessing firmwide resources: Prudential Financial
For more than 80 years, JPMorgan has worked with insurance industry leader Prudential
Financial to understand the breadth of its needs and provide tailored solutions integrating a
range of products and services. From investment banking to foreign exchange trading, cash
management, custody and other investor services, JPMorgan has provided Prudential with
sophisticated global solutions.
In 2003, JPMorgan’s firmwide relationship team worked with the insurer to craft a compre-
hensive solution for its securities custody and cash management needs. As a result, the firm
secured a mandate to act as custodian for a $140 billion asset portfolio and will serve as
clearing agent for all associated cash concentration and payments business.
Providing multi-business solutions: Dell Inc.

Dell’s relationship with JPMorgan Chase, as both a supplier and a valued client, spans nearly
two decades. From 1986, when the Middle Market Banking group set up a line of credit to
help the fast-growing young computer company’s operations, JPMorgan Chase teams have
progressively broadened the services provided, keeping pace with Dell’s business development
and asset management needs.
Recently, teams from across the firm collaborated to help Dell manage its cash position.
Today, the portfolio of services provided to Dell includes asset management, cash management,
custody and other investor services, trustee, foreign exchange and investment banking.
Harnessing financing know-how: the clients of Chase Auto Finance

Providing nearly $28 billion of auto financing in 2003, Chase Auto Finance (CAF) distinguished
itself as an industry leader. Collaborating with other groups in the firm, CAF goes beyond
traditional automotive financing and provides creative business solutions to a wide range of
customers in the automotive industry.
CAF partners with the Investment Bank and the Middle Market Banking group to help dealer
group clients improve their bottom lines, offering products and services such as basic loans,
revolving credit facilities – even, when appropriate, high-yield bond issues. Partnerships with
Chase Merchant Services and Chase Home Finance enable dealer customers to obtain credit
cards and credit card processing and to offer home financing as an employee benefit.
These cross-business partnerships enabled CAF to achieve a third-place ranking in 2003 loan
originations, behind only General Motors Acceptance Corp. and Ford Motor Credit Co.
Augo financie

results:
positioning the firm for growth
We have found that market leadership and customer satisfaction go hand in hand. That’s why positioning for
growth is an essential part of our strategy – our own, and our clients’. We are relentless in building on the
strengths of the JPMorgan Chase franchise to expand our leadership, both in market share and in client satis-
faction. The pending Bank One merger will help us achieve these goals: complementing our strengths, giving us
the scale to be a market-leading financial firm, and giving us a broader platform from which to serve our
clients. We continue to pursue growth in countless ways: acquiring complementary businesses, capitalizing on
current positions, even helping to expand global markets.
Acquiring complementary businesses: Treasury & Securities Services

JPMorgan Chase’s Treasury & Securities Services (TSS) is augmenting its global leadership
position and the growth of its three core businesses – Treasury Services, Investor Services and
Institutional Trust Services – with targeted acquisitions.
The acquisition strategy begun six years ago by Institutional Trust Services has been applied
across the three businesses and resulted in seven acquisitions signed in 2003. In businesses
where economy of scale is critical to success, TSS took a major step in 2003 with the acquisi-
tion of Bank One’s corporate trust business, which enhanced a franchise that was already the
#1 trustee for U.S. corporate debt. TSS also seeks out acquisitions that will expand its global
reach and complement its traditional product offering. The acquisition of Citicorp Electronic
Financial Services meets both of these objectives, extending Treasury Services’ core cash man-
agement and payments offerings into digitized prepaid stored value cards, and positioning
TSS for expansion into public- and private-sector markets globally.
Creating a unique offering: Personal Financial Services

Combining two of the firm’s hallmark strengths – banking expertise from Chase and investing
expertise from JPMorgan – Chase Personal Financial Services (PFS) meets market demand for a
unique, integrated approach to banking and investing for affluent individuals.
Launched early in 2003, PFS offers advice and solutions across a range of areas for affluent
clients: financial planning, education funding, retirement planning, tailored banking and
investing, and insurance. As part of its distinctive approach, PFS’s services and resources are
offered through traditional banking branches and over the telephone, as well as in specialized
locations. Clients work with a dedicated banker and advisor team that provides tailored financial
advice and solutions. They also have access to Personal Line, an around-the-clock phone
servicing unit, and to PFS Online, which provides integrated banking and investing capability.
In 2003, Personal Financial Services served 433,000 clients with deposit and investment
assets of $54 billion.

Building on momentum: Chase Home Finance
With an 82% increase in originations between 2002 and 2003,
Chase Home Finance (CHF) met record demand for residential
mortgages. Now, building on this strong momentum, CHF is
prepared to meet a different kind of demand when interest
rates plateau or rise: the demand for home equity lending.
With appealing interest rates and no closing costs, home
equity loans have become an attractive financing option for
consumers seeking cash-flow flexibility.
Having prepared for this change in market dynamics through-
out the past few years’ mortgage boom, CHF enters the
anticipated higher-rate environment with a significant com-
petitive advantage. From 2001 to 2003, CHF moved from
#11 in market share to #7 in Home Equity, and the firm has
set a goal to become by 2005 a top-three player in market
share and customer satisfaction – while maintaining its
outstanding credit and overall quality record.
Developing a leadership position in a growing market:

U.S. retail asset management
Defined contribution and IRA are the fastest-growing asset segments within the huge – and
rapidly growing – U.S. retail asset management market. JPMorgan Chase is positioned to
capitalize on this market’s explosive growth by aligning JPMorgan Retirement Plan Services
and BrownCo to offer mainstream U.S. retail investors a simpler, smarter way to roll over
IRA accounts.
JPMorgan Retirement Plan Services is a recognized innovator in personalized corporate retire-
ment planning to plan sponsors and individual participants, providing top-quality investment
products, 401(k) administration, record-keeping and advisory services. BrownCo is a leader in
discount brokerage – rated #1 consistently by Gómez Brokerage Research in overall cost, rated
#2 by J.D. Power and Associates in its 2003 online investor satisfaction survey, and named a
Forbes Best of the Web pick (Winter 2003).
Enabling client transformation: Amersham PLC

JPMorgan advised on one of last year’s top transformational deals, as U.K.-based Amersham,
a world leader in pharmaceutical diagnostics, agreed to merge with General Electric’s
Medical Systems.
The $10 billion transaction – the largest ever all-equity offer by a U.S. company for a U.K.
firm – will create a global leader in healthcare technologies.
For U.S. corporate leader GE, the deal was historically important, its second-largest equity
offering ever. In the U.K. market, the deal stood out as the year’s largest recommended offer
as well as the largest transatlantic deal.

results:
building a high-performance culture
Building a client-focused, leadership-driven ethos demands constant self-evaluation, self-reinforcement and
fresh thinking. Toward that end, the firm has initiated several programs that aim to drive best-of-breed execution
and disciplined business improvement. When it comes to improving our business – and our approach to doing
it – our job is never complete.t comes to improving our business – and our approach to doing it – our job is
never complete. Productivity & Quality/Six Sigma
Using disciplined methodologies such as Six Sigma, our employees streamlined key business
processes and increased savings in 2003. From transforming the client credit review process,
which improved risk management and profitability in the Investment Bank, to improving
the process of identifying potential customers for credit card offers, the firm’s broad-ranging
productivity and quality efforts yielded more than $1 billion in net financial benefits – more
than doubling the benefits achieved the previous year.
LeadershipMorganChase
Two years ago, the firm implemented LeadershipMorganChase (LMC) to help develop a
stronger corporate culture and further develop the firm’s leaders through a focus on values,
partnership, communication and performance. More than 60,000 employees worldwide,
from all five lines of business, have participated.
One outgrowth of LMC in 2003 was the Knowledge Broker Network, an internal network of
more than 80 individuals across the firm that makes it simpler to determine whom to call
to better serve customers and generate incremental revenue. These efforts have led to stronger
client relationships and successful execution of revenue-generating activities.
JPMorgan Chase Poll

Annually, JPMorgan Chase polls its employees to assess their understanding of the firm’s
strategy; commitment to the firm; partnership with colleagues; and perceptions of the firm’s
efforts in diversity, work-life balance and leadership.
Some 95% of employees worldwide completed the 2003 poll, and commitment to the firm is
exceedingly high: 91% of respondents are willing to put in an effort beyond normal expec-
tations to get the job done. Strides in diversity continue, with 76% of employees believing that
the firm’s focus and efforts will make the company even stronger. Finally, at 71%, overall
satisfaction with the firm ranks well above external benchmarks. Areas for improvement included
continual enhancements to technology processes and services, and flexible work arrangements.
and making
our communities thrive
JPMorgan Chase vigorously supports the development and prosperity of the communities it serves. Committing
time, money and creativity, the firm and its employees make a difference at crucial development stages for
cultural and human-services organizations; countries and societies; and individuals. Our efforts support human
services and education providers, sponsor artistic and cultural endeavors, make homeownership possible for
minorities and spur sustainable economic development – all necessary ingredients to help communities flourish.
Realizing dreams: minority homeownership

In the United States today, fewer than 50% of minority households and other under-served
markets own their homes, while just under 70% of the total population are homeowners. The
Chase Dream Maker Commitment SM, a 10-year, $500 billion initiative by Chase Home Finance
(CHF), helps those who aspire to homeownership to achieve their dream – sustainably.
The Chase Dream Maker Commitment SM initiative provides more than capital. Through seminars
and other financial-education programs, CHF provides greater access to information about the
mortgage process and promotes homeownership as a prudent wealth-building investment.
This initiative – which in its first three years has already originated $182 billion of its total 10-year
commitment – is helping to make the American dream a reality for thousands of Americans.
Fostering a rebirth: South Africa initiatives

In 2003, JPMorgan Chase helped advance South Africa’s transformation into a thriving, first-
world economy by providing financial advice, resources and capital to companies, organiza-
tions, schools and individuals in the region.
A prime example was the firm’s advisory role in Harmony Gold Mining Co.’s sale of a 10% equity
stake. The transaction made Harmony the leading black-empowered South African gold mining
company, and it cemented JPMorgan’s position as the leading M&A advisor in South Africa.
JPMorgan Chase also continued its support of South African charitable organizations. Through
our local foundation, The JPMorgan South Africa Foundation, the firm provided $486,000 to
charities offering aid for education, HIV, the elderly and the disabled.
Establishing leadership: corporate philanthropy

From supporting pre-collegiate education to assisting with the economic empowerment of
women, the J.P. Morgan Chase Foundation reached out to the firm’s many communities through
its 2003 philanthropic programs.
Grants and recoverable grants to the Low Income Investment Fund helped capitalize the con-
struction and expansion of childcare facilities in New York and California. Foundation contribu-
tions to Pro Mujer bolstered that organization’s work with entrepreneurial women in Peru
and Mexico. Another grant helped Freedom from Hunger provide small cash loans and health
and nutrition education to women living in rural areas of the developing world.
The examples are international, the theme universal: the foundation was a valuable partner
in strengthening the global community.
JPMorgan Chase at a glance
Our businesses
Investment Bank JPMorgan is one of the world’s leading investment banks, as evidenced by the breadth of
its client relationships and product capabilities. The Investment Bank (IB) has extensive
relationships with corporations, financial institutions, governments and institutional
(In millions, except ratios) 2003 2002
investors worldwide. The firm provides a full range of investment banking and commercial
Operating revenue $ 14,440 $ 12,498 banking products and services, including advising on corporate strategy and structure,
capital raising in equity and debt markets, sophisticated risk management, and market-
Operating earnings 3,685 1,303
making in cash securities and derivative instruments in all major capital markets. IB also
Overhead ratio 59% 64%
commits the firm’s own capital to proprietary investing and trading activities.
Treasury JPMorgan Treasury & Securities Services (TSS), a global leader in transaction processing
& Securities Services 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,
Operating revenue $ 3,992 $ 3,892 investment analytics and reporting, to mutual funds, investment managers, pension funds,
Operating earnings 520 621 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.
Investment Management Investment Management & Private Banking (IMPB) provides investment management
& Private Banking services to institutional investors and retail customers, and personalized advice and
solutions to high-net-worth individuals and families globally. Through JPMorgan Fleming
Asset Management, IMPB delivers investment management across all asset classes. Online
brokerage services are provided through BrownCo and retirement plan administration
Operating revenue $ 2,878 $ 2,839 and consultation through JPMorgan Retirement Plan Services. Through its JPMorgan Private
Operating earnings 268 261 Bank franchise, IMPB addresses every facet of wealth management for private clients,
including investment management, capital markets and risk management, tax and estate
planning, banking, capital raising and specialty-wealth advisory services.
JPMorgan Partners JPMorgan Partners (JPMP), the firm’s global private equity organization, provides equity and
mezzanine capital financing to private companies. It is a diversified investor, investing in
buyouts, growth equity and venture opportunities across a variety of industry sectors, with
(In millions) 2003 2002
the objective of creating long-term value for the firm and third-party investors.
Operating revenue $ (190) $ (976)
Operating losses (293) (808)
Overhead ratio NM NM
NM – not meaningful
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
(In millions, except ratios) 2003 2002 States. The majority of its revenues and earnings is produced by its national consumer credit
businesses, Chase Home Finance, Chase Cardmember Services and Chase Auto Finance. It
Operating revenue $ 14,632 $ 13,426 also serves as a full-service bank for consumers and small- and medium-sized businesses
Operating earnings 2,495 2,320 through Chase Regional Banking and Chase Middle Market.
Execution focus in 2003 Growth strategies
• IB improved its ranking in Global Equity and Equity-Related to #4 from #8. It maintained its #1 • Continue to build a premier wholesale financial
ranking in Global Syndicated Loans and its rankings in Global Investment-Grade Bonds (#2) and services franchise, to take advantage of the
Global Announced M&A (#5). ongoing global markets recovery.
• IB reported record earnings, driven by strong growth in capital markets revenues and equity • Using IB’s scale and platform, deliver a complete
underwriting fees, and significant improvement in commercial credit quality, which resulted in set of solutions and products to the firm’s top-tier
lower credit costs. franchise of issuer and investor clients.
• Capital markets and lending total return revenues grew 22%, driven by activity in fixed income • Build upon IB’s innovative derivative and risk
and equity capital markets and by the Global Treasury business. management capabilities.
• JPMorgan advised on the largest transatlantic acquisition of 2003 – Amersham’s $10 billion • Invest in technology to achieve best-in-class
acquisition by the General Electric Company. infrastructure.
• TSS signed seven acquisitions during 2003, which are projected to add significantly to revenue in • Make selected acquisitions to increase scale in
2004. Six of the acquisitions closed in 2003. traditional product areas, extend product lines
• Revenue growth improved quarter to quarter, benefiting strongly from a fourth quarter rebound in and expand geographic reach.
Investor Services revenues. • Achieve market differentiation by delivering
• Through Six Sigma and other productivity initiatives, TSS found $91 million of efficiencies during competitively superior client service.
the year. • Expand in high-potential, under-penetrated
market segments.
• Continue relentless focus on productivity to fund
investments in the business.
• JPMorgan Fleming Asset Management achieved solid investment results across all major asset • Increase focus on the rapidly growing U.S. retire-
classes, including U.S. and international equity and global fixed income strategies, and real estate. ment market by aligning JPMorgan Retirement
• JPMorgan Private Bank delivered growth in number of clients, levels of assets, and number of Plan Services and BrownCo.
products used per client in 2003. Net asset inflows were $8 billion. Expenses were flat and credit • Achieve private banking growth through deepen-
costs declined by nearly 60%. ing relationships with existing clients and through
• BrownCo continued to see positive momentum in online trading. Assets under supervision acquiring new clients and assets worldwide.
increased by 48% from the end of 2002, and customer margin balances rose by 27% to • Continue to build upon our fund management
$2.4 billion. joint venture in China.
• IMPB saw its retirement participant base grow to more than 750,000 individuals from 270 • Capture opportunities in the growing market for
corporate retirement plans as a result of the Retirement Plan Services acquisition. alternative investments and customized strategic
investment solutions.
• JPMP generated net gains of $346 million in the direct private equity portfolio, including realized • Leverage JPMorgan Chase’s extensive worldwide
cash gains of $535 million. network to gain access to unique investment
• The firm led or co-led a number of signature acquisitions across the United States (Pinnacle Foods, opportunities.
Aurora Foods, Kraton Polymers, Unisource Energy), Europe (IMO Car Wash), Asia (Singapore Yellow • Focus on the upper end of middle market buy-
Pages) and Latin America (Convermex). outs, growth equity and venture opportunities
• Two companies in the JPMP portfolio went public in 2003 and three additional companies have worldwide.
had initial public offerings thus far in 2004. At present, the portfolio includes five companies that • Draw on JPMP’s vast network to originate and
have filed for public offerings in the coming months. manage successful investments.
• JPMP reduced exposure to third-party funds and real estate through sales of selected investments • Continue to service external institutional
that were not central to its portfolio strategy. and private banking investors while stepping
• JPMorgan Chase continued to reduce its percentage of capital invested in private equity, to 15% up efforts to integrate them into the JPMP
at year-end 2003 from 20% at year-end 2002. global network.
• Chase Home Finance produced record levels of loan originations and applications, gaining market • Building on our pending merger with Bank One,
share. Home Equity origination volume, a strategic growth area, was up 71%. increase scale and breadth in consumer credit
• Chase Auto Finance – a best-in-class business – increased market share and produced record auto markets, and add scale and reach in branch bank-
loan and lease originations. Operating earnings were up 23%. ing and middle markets nationwide.
• Chase Cardmember Services achieved record new accounts and volume. Significant progress was • Continue to grow home equity, adding near-
made in online account acquisition, cross-selling to other Chase customers, and launching new prime capabilities.
rewards-based products. Credit quality remained stable. • Rejuvenate branches and enhance sales culture
• Chase Regional Banking expanded its customer relationships, resulting in a 14% increase in core to address needs of small-business and mass
deposits and a 77% increase in cross-selling of credit products. affluent clients.
• Chase Middle Market maintained market leadership and strong credit quality, while also achieving • Deliver on cross-selling potential.
significant efficiency gains in its sales model.
Leadership positions
Investment Bank
• #1 in Global Syndicated Loans, with an 18% market share (Thomson Financial Securities Data)
• #1 in Credit Derivatives and #1 in Interest Rate Derivatives (Institutional Investor )
• #1 in Emerging Markets International Bonds, with a 16% market share (Thomson Financial Securities Data)
• #2 in Global Investment-Grade Bonds, with an 8% market share (Thomson Financial Securities Data)
• #4 in Global Equity and Equity-Related capital raising; in particular, the firm ranks #1 in Global Convertibles,
with a 13% market share (Thomson Financial Securities Data)
• #5 in Global Announced M&A, with a 16% market share (Thomson Financial Securities Data)
Treasury & Securities Services
• #1 in Automated Clearing House originations, CHIPS and Fedwire

• #1 in U.S. dollar clearing and commercial payments, processing up to $1.9 trillion daily
• #1 in custody in the world and in North America, Euromoney, 2003
• #3 in assets under custody at $7.6 trillion
• #1 trustee for U.S. debt, excluding mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities
• #1 issuing and paying agent for U.S. commercial paper
• #1 ADR bank for reported ADR market cap under management
Investment Management & Private Banking
• #1 private bank in the U.S. and #3 in the world based on total client assets
• #1 international money market manager
• #2 pan-European mutual fund provider
• BrownCo ranked #2 in J.D. Power & Associates 2003 Online Investor Satisfaction StudySM
• #4 manager of U.S. defined benefit assets
JPMorgan Partners
• Global Fund ($6.5 billion) among largest funds in the market

• More than $1 billion invested, inclusive of JPM and third-party capital
• Sale of stake in Chilean bank Corpbanca named “Private Equity Deal of the Year” (Latin Finance )
• Acquisition of Singapore Yellow Pages named “Buyout of the Year” (Asian Venture Capital Association)
• Nine JPMP offices worldwide; investments in more than 38 countries
Chase Financial Services
• Fourth-largest mortgage originator and servicer in the United States, with more than four million customers
• Fourth-largest U.S. credit card issuer, with $52 billion in managed receivables and total volume of $90 billion
• Largest U.S. bank originator of automobile loans and leases, with more than 2.9 million accounts, or $28 billion in originations
• #1 bank in the New York tri-state area and top-five bank in Texas as ranked by retail deposits
• A leader in middle market banking in the New York tri-state area and in Texas

Table of contents
Financial: This section of the Annual Report provides

management’s discussion and analysis
Management’s discussion
(“MD&A”) of the financial condition and
and analysis:
results of operations for JPMorgan Chase.
22 Overview See Glossary of terms on pages 130 and 131
for a definition of terms used throughout
25 Results of operations
this Annual Report.
27 Segment results
45 Risk and Capital management Certain forward-looking

46 Capital and Liquidity management statements
The MD&A contains certain forward-looking
51 Credit risk management
statements. Those forward-looking state-
66 Market risk management ments are subject to risks and uncertainties,
72 Operational risk management and JPMorgan Chase’s actual results may
differ from those set forth in the forward-
74 Private equity risk management
looking statements. See JPMorgan Chase’s
74 Critical accounting estimates used by the
reports filed with the Securities and
Firm
Exchange Commission for a discussion of
78 Accounting and reporting developments factors that could cause JPMorgan Chase’s
80 Comparison between 2002 and 2001 actual results to differ materially from those
described in the forward-looking statements.
Audited financial statements:
81 Management’s report on responsibility for

financial reporting
Corporate:
81 Report of independent auditors
132 Community Advisory Board
82 Consolidated financial statements
133 Regional Advisory Board
86 Notes to consolidated financial statements
134 National Advisory Board
135 JPMorgan International Council

Supplementary information:
136 Board of Directors
128 Selected quarterly financial data
136 Office of the Chairman
129 Five-year summary of financial highlights
136 Executive Committee
130 Glossary of terms
136 Other corporate officers
137 Corporate data and shareholder

information

Management’s discussion and analysis
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Overview
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. is a leading global finan- Total Noninterest expense was $21.7 billion, down 5% from the
cial services firm with assets of $771 billion and prior year. In 2002, the Firm recorded $1.3 billion of charges, princi-
operations in more than 50 countries. The Firm pally for Enron-related surety litigation and the establishment of lit-
igation reserves; and $1.2 billion for Merger and restructuring costs
serves more than 30 million consumers nationwide
related to programs announced prior to January 1, 2002. Excluding
through its retail businesses, and many of the these costs, expenses rose by 7% in 2003, reflecting higher per-
world's most prominent corporate, institutional formance-related incentives; increased costs related to stock-based
and government clients through its global whole- compensation and pension and other postretirement expenses; and
sale businesses. higher occupancy expenses. The Firm began expensing stock
options in 2003. Restructuring costs associated with initiatives
Financial performance of JPMorgan Chase announced after January 1, 2002, were recorded in their relevant
As of or for the year ended December 31, expense categories and totaled $630 million in 2003, down 29%
(in millions, except per share and ratio data) 2003 2002 Change from 2002.
Revenue $ 33,256 $ 29,614 12% The 2003 Provision for credit losses of $1.5 billion was down
Noninterest expense 21,688 22,764 (5) $2.8 billion, or 64%, from 2002. The provision was lower than
Provision for credit losses 1,540 4,331 (64)
total net charge-offs of $2.3 billion, reflecting significant
Net income 6,719 1,663 304
Net income per share – diluted 3.24 0.80 305
improvement in the quality of the commercial loan portfolio.
Average common equity 42,988 41,368 4 Commercial nonperforming assets and criticized exposure levels
Return on average common equity (“ROCE”) 16% 4% 1,200bp declined 42% and 47%, respectively, from December 31, 2002.
Consumer credit quality remained stable.
Tier 1 capital ratio 8.5% 8.2% 30bp
Total capital ratio 11.8 12.0 (20) Earnings per diluted share (“EPS”) for the year were $3.24, an
Tier 1 leverage ratio 5.6 5.1 50
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
In 2003, global growth strengthened relative to the prior two and special items. Operating EPS in 2002 was $1.66. See page
years. The U.S. economy improved significantly, supported by 28 of this Annual Report for a reconciliation between reported
diminishing geopolitical uncertainties, new tax relief, strong and operating EPS.
profit growth, low interest rates and a rising stock market.
Productivity at U.S. businesses continued to grow at an extraor- Summary of segment results
dinary pace, as a result of ongoing investment in information
The Firm’s wholesale businesses are known globally as
technologies. Profit margins rose to levels not seen in a long
“JPMorgan,” and its national consumer and middle market busi-
time. New hiring remained tepid, but signs of an improving job
nesses are known as “Chase.” The wholesale businesses com-
market emerged late in the year. Inflation fell to the lowest level
prise four segments: the Investment Bank (“IB”), Treasury &
in more than 40 years, and the Board of Governors of the
Securities Services (“TSS”), Investment Management &
Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve Board”) declared
Private Banking (“IMPB”) and JPMorgan Partners (“JPMP”).
that its long-run goal of price stability had been achieved.
IB provides a full range of investment banking and commercial
Against this backdrop, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (“JPMorgan banking products and services, including advising on corporate
Chase” or the “Firm”) reported 2003 Net income of $6.7 bil- strategy and structure, capital raising, risk management, and
lion, compared with Net income of $1.7 billion in 2002. All five market-making in cash securities and derivative instruments in all
of the Firm’s lines of business benefited from the improved eco- major capital markets. The three businesses within TSS provide
nomic conditions, with each reporting increased revenue over debt servicing, securities custody and related functions, and
2002. In particular, the low–interest rate environment drove treasury and cash management services to corporations, financial
robust fixed income markets and an unprecedented mortgage institutions and governments. The IMPB business provides invest-
refinancing boom, resulting in record earnings in the Investment ment management services to institutional investors, high net
Bank and Chase Financial Services. worth individuals and retail customers and also provides person-
alized advice and solutions to wealthy individuals and families.
Total revenue for 2003 was $33.3 billion, up 12% from 2002.
JPMP, the Firm’s private equity business, provides equity and mez-
The Investment Bank’s revenue increased by approximately
zanine capital financing to private companies. The Firm’s national
$1.9 billion from 2002, and Chase Financial Services’ revenue
consumer and middle market businesses, which provide lending
was $14.6 billion in 2003, another record year.
and full-service banking to consumers and small and middle mar-
ket businesses, comprise Chase Financial Services (“CFS”).

Segment results – Operating basis (a)
Operating revenue (loss) Operating earnings (losses) Return on allocated capital
Year ended December 31, Change from Change from
(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 JPMP revenue was impacted in 2003 by losses on sales and
results reflect the manner in which the Firm’s financial informa- writedowns of private third-party fund investments. JPMP
tion is currently evaluated by management and is presented on decreased its operating loss for the year by 64% compared
an operating basis. Prior-period segment results have been with 2002.
adjusted to reflect alignment of management accounting policies
CFS posted record earnings of $2.5 billion, driven by record results
or changes in organizational structure among businesses.
and origination volumes at each of the national credit businesses –
IB reported record earnings of $3.7 billion for 2003, up 183% mortgage, credit card and auto. Record revenues for CFS of $14.6
from 2002, driven by strong growth in capital markets revenues billion were up 9% from 2002, driven by record revenues in Chase
and equity underwriting fees, coupled with a significant decline Home Finance. Despite significant deposit growth, Chase Regional
in credit costs. The low–interest-rate environment, improvement Banking revenues decreased due to deposit spread compression.
in equity markets and volatility in credit markets produced CFS’s return on allocated capital was 28% for the year.
increased client and portfolio management revenue in fixed
In 2003, JPMorgan Chase revised its internal management
income and equities, as well as strong returns in Global Treasury.
reporting policies to allocate certain revenues, expenses and tax-
Market-share gains in equity underwriting contributed to the
related items that had been recorded within the Corporate seg-
increase in Investment banking fees over 2002. IB’s return on
ment to the other business segments. There was no impact on
allocated capital was 19% for the year.
the Firm’s overall earnings.
TSS earnings of $520 million for the year were down 16%
For a discussion of the Firm’s Segment results, see pages 27–44
compared with 2002. Revenues were $4.0 billion for the full
of this Annual Report.
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
Capital and liquidity management
over the last four consecutive quarters. Return on allocated capi- JPMorgan Chase increased capital during 2003. At December 31,
tal for TSS was 19% for the year. 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
IMPB increased earnings and assets under supervision in 2003.
well in excess of the minimum regulatory guidelines, it was 8.2% at
Earnings of $268 million for the full year were up 3% from
year-end 2002. The Firm maintained the quarterly dividend of $0.34
2002, reflecting an improved credit portfolio, slightly higher rev-
per share on its common stock. JPMorgan Chase did not repur-
enues and the benefits of managed expense growth. The
chase shares of its common stock in 2003. Management expects to
increase in revenues reflected the acquisition of Retirement Plan
recommend to the Board of Directors that the Firm resume its share
Services, and increased average equity market valuations in
repurchase program after the completion of the pending merger
client portfolios and brokerage activity, mostly offset by the
with Bank One Corporation (see Business events below).
impact of institutional net outflows. Investment performance in
core institutional products improved, with all major asset classes The Firm’s liquidity management is designed to ensure sufficient
in U.S. institutional fixed income and equities showing above- liquidity resources to meet all its obligations, both on- and
benchmark results. Return on allocated capital was 5% for the off–balance sheet, in a wide range of market environments. The
year; return on tangible allocated capital was 20%. Firm’s access to the unsecured funding markets is dependent
upon its credit rating. During 2003, the Firm maintained senior
JPMP performance improved significantly, with private equity
debt ratings of AA-/Aa3/A+ at JPMorgan Chase Bank and
gains of $27 million, compared with private equity losses of
A+/A1/A+ at the parent holding company. Upon the announce-
$733 million for 2002. Results for the direct investments portfo-
ment of the proposed merger with Bank One Corporation,
lio improved by $929 million from 2002, driven by realized gains
Moody’s and Fitch placed the Firm’s ratings on review for an
on sales and declining write-downs in the second half of 2003.
upgrade, and S&P affirmed all of the Firm’s ratings. See Business the goal that these transactions are not used to mislead
events below. investors or others.
During the year, the Firm revised its capital allocation method-
Risk management
ologies for credit, operational, business and private equity risk.
The Firm made substantial progress in lowering its risk profile in This resulted in the reallocation of capital among the risk cate-
2003. gories and the business segments; the reallocation did not result
Total commercial credit exposure, which includes loans, deriva- in a significant change in the amount of total capital allocated
tive receivables, lending-related commitments and other assets, to the business segments as a whole.
declined by $30.2 billion, or 7%, from December 31, 2002. For a further discussion of Risk management and the capital allo-
Increased financings in the public markets, reduced loan cation methodology, see pages 45–74 of this Annual Report.
demand and loan sales drove the decline. In 2003, the Firm
implemented a more stringent exposure-review process and Business outlook
lower absolute exposure limits for industry and single-name con-
Global economic conditions and financial markets activity are
centrations, including investment-grade obligors. The Firm was
expected to continue to improve in 2004. While rising interest
also more active in managing commercial credit by selling higher-
rates may negatively affect the mortgage and Global Treasury busi-
risk loans and commitments and entering into single-name
nesses; on the positive side, gains in market share, rising equity val-
credit default swap hedges.
ues and increased market activity may benefit many of the Firm’s
Total consumer loans on a managed basis, which includes both other businesses.
reported and securitized loans, increased by $15.7 billion, or 10%,
The Firm expects to see a different mix of earnings in 2004. IB is tar-
from December 31, 2002. The consumer portfolio is predominantly
geting higher issuer and investor client revenue, but securities gains
U.S.-based. The largest component, 1–4 family residential mort-
and net interest income may be lower. Mortgage earnings are likely
gage loans, which are primarily secured by first mortgages, com-
to decline from the record set in 2003, and growth in other retail
prised 43% of the total consumer portfolio at December 31, 2003.
businesses may not be sufficient to offset the decline in mortgage
JPMP’s private equity portfolio declined by 12% to $7.3 billion at revenue. Improved equity markets and increased M&A activity may
December 31, 2003, from $8.2 billion at December 31, 2002. provide increased exit opportunities in private equity and could
At year-end 2003, the portfolio was diversified across industry sec- result in higher fees in IMPB and in the custody business of TSS.
tors and geographies – with a higher percentage invested in more Commercial net charge-off ratios may be lower, but credit costs
mature leveraged buyouts and a lower percentage in venture invest- may rise as the reduction in the Allowance for credit losses slows.
ments than at year-end 2002. The carrying value of JPMP’s portfolio The Firm expects stable consumer net charge-off ratios in 2004.
has decreased year-over-year, consistent with management’s goal to
reduce, over time, the capital committed to private equity. Business events
The Firm uses several tools, both statistical and nonstatistical, to Agreement to merge with Bank One Corporation
measure market risk, including Value-at-Risk (“VAR”), Risk identi-
On January 14, 2004, JPMorgan Chase and Bank One Corporation
fication for large exposures (“RIFLE”), economic value stress tests
(“Bank One”) announced an agreement to merge. The merger
and net interest income stress tests. The Firm calculates VAR daily
agreement, which has been approved by the boards of directors of
on its trading and nontrading activities. Average trading VAR
both companies, provides for a stock-for-stock merger in which
decreased for full-year 2003. The year-end trading VAR increased
1.32 shares of JPMorgan Chase common stock will be exchanged,
compared with year-end 2002 due to higher VAR for equity
on a tax-free basis, for each share of Bank One common stock.
activities. In 2003, trading losses exceeded VAR on only one day,
a result that is consistent with the 99% confidence level. The merged company, headquartered in New York, will be
Average, maximum, and December 31 nontrading VAR increased known as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and will have combined
in 2003, primarily due to the increase in market volatility during assets of $1.1 trillion, a strong capital base, 2,300 branches in
the 2003 third quarter and to the rise in interest rates in the sec- 17 states and top-tier positions in retail banking and lending,
ond half of 2003. There was an additional day in 2003 in which credit cards, investment banking, asset management, private
losses exceeded VAR; this was attributable to certain positions in banking, treasury and securities services, middle markets and pri-
the mortgage banking business. vate equity. It is expected that cost savings of $2.2 billion (pre-
tax) will be achieved over a three-year period. Merger-related
The Firm is also committed to maintaining business practices of
costs are expected to be $3 billion (pre-tax).
the highest quality. The Fiduciary Risk Committee is responsible
for overseeing that businesses providing investment or risk man- The merger is subject to approval by the shareholders of both
agement products and services perform at the appropriate stan- institutions as well as U.S. federal and state and non-U.S. regula-
dard in their relationships with clients. In addition, the Policy tory authorities. It is expected to be completed in mid-2004.
Review Office oversees the review of transactions with clients in
For further information concerning the merger, see Note 2 on
terms of appropriateness, ethical issues and reputation risk, with
page 87 of this Annual Report.

Results of operations For additional information on Fees and commissions, see the
segment discussions of TSS for Custody and institutional trust
This section discusses JPMorgan Chase’s results service fees, IMPB for Investment management and service fees,
of operations on a reported basis. The accompa- and CFS for consumer-related fees on pages 32–33, 34–35 and
nying financial data conforms with accounting 38–43, respectively, of this Annual Report.
principles generally accepted in the United States
of America (“GAAP”) and prevailing industry Private equity gains (losses)
practices. The section should be read in conjunc- Private equity gains of $33 million in 2003 reflect significant
tion with the Consolidated financial statements improvement from losses of $746 million in 2002. For a discussion
and Notes to consolidated financial statements of Private equity gains (losses), which are primarily recorded in
JPMP, see JPMP results on pages 36–37.
beginning on page 82 of this Annual Report.
Securities gains
Revenues
In 2003, Securities gains of $1.4 billion declined 7% from the
Year ended December 31, prior year. The decline reflected lower gains realized from the
(in millions) 2003 2002 Change
sale of government and agency securities in IB and mortgage-
Investment banking fees $ 2,890 $ 2,763 5% backed securities in Chase Home Finance (“CHF”), driven by the
Trading revenue 4,427 2,675 65 increasing interest rate environment beginning in the third quar-
Fees and commissions 10,652 10,387 3
ter of 2003. IB uses available-for-sale investment securities to
Private equity gains (losses) 33 (746) NM
manage, in part, the asset/liability exposures of the Firm; CHF
Securities gains 1,446 1,563 (7)
Mortgage fees and related income 892 988 (10) uses these instruments to economically hedge the value of
Other revenue 579 458 26 mortgage servicing rights (“MSRs”). For a further analysis of
Net interest income 12,337 11,526 7 securities gains, see IB and CHF on pages 29–31 and 39–40,
Total revenue $ 33,256 $ 29,614 12%
respectively, of this Annual Report.
Mortgage fees and related income

Investment banking fees
Mortgage fees and related income of $892 million in 2003 declined
Investment banking fees of $2.9 billion rose 5% from 2002.
10% from 2002. The decline reflects lower mortgage servicing fees
For a discussion of Investment banking fees, which are primarily
and lower revenues from MSR hedging activities; these were offset
recorded in IB, see IB segment results on pages 29–31 of this
by higher fees from origination and sales activity and other fees
Annual Report.
derived from volume and market-share growth. Mortgage fees and
related income, on a reported basis, excludes the impact of NII and
Trading revenue
securities gains and losses related to Chase Home Finance’s mort-
Trading revenue in 2003 of $4.4 billion was up 65% from the gage banking activities. For a further discussion of mortgage-related
prior year. Fixed income and equity capital markets activities drove revenue, see the segment discussion for Chase Home Finance on
growth in both client and portfolio management revenues. pages 39–40 and Note 4 on page 89 of this Annual Report.
Portfolio management, in particular, was up significantly from
2002 as a result of gains in credit, foreign exchange and equity Other revenue
derivatives activities. Trading revenue, on a reported basis,
Other revenue of $579 million in 2003 rose 26% from the prior
excludes the impact of Net interest income (“NII”) related to IB’s
year. The increase was a result of $200 million in gains from the
trading activities, which is reported in NII. However, the Firm
sale of securities acquired in loan satisfactions (compared with $26
includes trading-related NII as part of Trading revenue for segment
million in 2002), partly offset by lower net results from corporate
reporting purposes to better assess the profitability of IB’s trading
and bank-owned life insurance policies. Many other factors con-
business. For additional information on Trading revenue, see IB
tributed to the change from 2002, including $73 million of write-
segment discussion on pages 29–31 of this Annual Report.
downs taken in 2002 for several Latin American investments.
Fees and commissions
Net interest income
Fees and commissions of $10.7 billion in 2003 rose 3% from the
NII of $12.3 billion was 7% higher than in 2002. The increase
prior year as a result of higher credit card servicing fees associated
reflected the positive impact of lower interest rates on consumer
with $5.8 billion in growth in average securitized credit card receiv-
loan originations and related funding costs. Average mortgage
ables. Also contributing to the increase from 2002 were higher cus-
loans in CHF rose 32% to $74.1 billion, and average automobile
tody, institutional trust and other processing-related service fees.
loans and leases in Chase Auto Finance increased 32% to
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.

$41.7 billion. NII was reduced by a lower volume of commercial Technology and communications expense
loans and lower spreads on investment securities. As a compo-
In 2003, Technology and communications expense was 11%
nent of NII, trading-related net interest income of $2.1 billion
above the prior-year level. The increase was primarily due to a
was up 13% from 2002 due to a change in the composition of,
shift in expenses: costs that were previously associated with
and growth in, trading assets.
Compensation and Other expenses shifted, upon the commence-
The Firm’s total average interest-earning assets in 2003 were ment of the IBM outsourcing agreement, to Technology and
$590 billion, up 6% from the prior year. The net interest yield communications expense. Also contributing to the increase were
on these assets, on a fully taxable-equivalent basis, was 2.10%, higher costs related to software amortization. For a further dis-
compared with 2.09% in the prior year. cussion of the IBM outsourcing agreement, see Support Units
and Corporate on page 44 of this Annual Report.
Noninterest expense
Other expense
Year ended December 31,
(in millions) 2003 2002 Change Other expense in 2003 rose slightly from the prior year, reflecting
higher Outside services. For a table showing the components of
Compensation expense $ 11,695 $ 10,983 6%
Occupancy expense 1,912 1,606 19
Other expense, see Note 8 on page 96 of this Annual Report.
Technology and communications expense 2,844 2,554 11
Other expense 5,137 5,111 1 Surety settlement and litigation reserve
Surety settlement and litigation reserve 100 1,300 (92) The Firm added $100 million to the Enron-related litigation
Merger and restructuring costs — 1,210 NM reserve in 2003 to supplement a $900 million reserve initially
Total noninterest expense $ 21,688 $ 22,764 (5)% 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
Compensation expense addition, in 2002 the Firm recorded a charge of $400 million for
Compensation expense in 2003 was 6% higher than in the prior the settlement of Enron-related surety litigation.
year. The increase principally reflected higher performance-related
incentives, and higher pension and other postretirement benefit Merger and restructuring costs
costs, primarily as a result of changes in actuarial assumptions. For Merger and restructuring costs related to business restructurings
a detailed discussion of pension and other postretirement benefit announced after January 1, 2002, were recorded in their relevant
costs, see Note 6 on pages 89–93 of this Annual Report. The expense categories. In 2002, Merger and restructuring costs of
increase pertaining to incentives included $266 million as a result $1.2 billion, for programs announced prior to January 1, 2002,
of adopting SFAS 123, and $120 million from the reversal in 2002 were viewed by management as nonoperating expenses or
of previously accrued expenses for certain forfeitable key employ- “special items.” Refer to Note 8 on pages 95–96 of this Annual
ee stock awards, as discussed in Note 7 on pages 93–95 of this Report for a further discussion of Merger and restructuring costs
Annual Report. Total compensation expense declined as a result and for a summary, by expense category and business segment,
of the transfer, beginning April 1, 2003, of 2,800 employees to of costs incurred in 2003 and 2002 for programs announced
IBM in connection with a technology outsourcing agreement. The after January 1, 2002.
total number of full-time equivalent employees at December 31,
2003 was 93,453 compared with 94,335 at the prior year-end. Provision for credit losses
Occupancy expense The 2003 Provision for credit losses was $2.8 billion lower than in
2002, primarily reflecting continued improvement in the quality of
Occupancy expense of $1.9 billion rose 19% from 2002. The the commercial loan portfolio and a higher volume of credit card
increase reflected costs of additional leased space in midtown securitizations. For further information about the Provision for
Manhattan and in the South and Southwest regions of the credit losses and the Firm’s management of credit risk, see the dis-
United States; higher real estate taxes in New York City; and cussions of net charge-offs associated with the commercial and
the cost of enhanced safety measures. Also contributing to consumer loan portfolios and the Allowance for credit losses, on
the increase were charges for unoccupied excess real estate pages 63–65 of this Annual Report.
of $270 million; this compared with $120 million in 2002,
mostly in the third quarter of that year. 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.

Segment results
JPMorgan Chase’s lines of business are segmented based on the Prior to 2003, the Firm excluded from its operating results the
products and services provided or the type of customer serviced impact of merger and restructuring costs and special items, as
and reflect the manner in which financial information is currently these transactions were viewed by management as not part of
evaluated by the Firm’s management. Revenues and expenses the Firm’s normal daily business operations or unusual in nature
directly associated with each segment are included in determin- and, therefore, not indicative of trends. To be considered a special
ing that segment’s results. Management accounting and other item, the nonrecurring gain or loss had to be at least $75 million
policies exist to allocate those remaining expenses that are not or more during 2002. Commencing in 2003, management deter-
directly incurred by the segments. mined that many of the costs previously considered nonoperating
were to be deemed operating costs. However, it is possible that in
Overview the future, management may designate certain material gains or
losses incurred by the Firm to be “special items.”
The wholesale businesses of JPMorgan Chase are known globally
as “JPMorgan” and comprise the Investment Bank, Treasury & The segment results also reflect revenue- and expense-sharing
Securities Services, Investment Management & Private Banking agreements between certain lines of business. Revenue and
and JPMorgan Partners. The national consumer and middle mar- expenses attributed to shared activities are recognized in each
ket businesses are known as “Chase” and collectively comprise line of business, and any double counting is eliminated at the
Chase Financial Services. segment level. These arrangements promote cross-selling and
management of shared client expenses. They also ensure that
Basis of presentation the contributions of both businesses are fully recognized.
The Firm prepares its consolidated financial statements, which Prior-period segment results have been adjusted to reflect align-
appear on pages 82–85 of this Annual Report, using U.S. GAAP ment of management accounting policies or changes in organi-
and prevailing industry practices. The financial statements are pre- zational structure among businesses. Restatements of segment
sented on a “reported basis,” which provides the reader with an results may occur in the future.
understanding of the Firm’s results that can be consistently tracked
from year to year and enables a comparison of the Firm’s perform- See Note 34 on pages 126–127 of this Annual Report for further
ance with other companies’ U.S. GAAP financial statements. information about JPMorgan Chase’s five business segments.
In addition to analyzing the Firm’s results on a reported basis, Capital allocation

management looks at results on an “operating basis,” which is a
non-GAAP financial measure, to assess each of its lines of busi- The Firm allocates capital to its business units utilizing a risk-
ness and to measure overall Firm results against targeted goals. adjusted methodology, which quantifies credit, market, opera-
The definition of operating basis starts with the reported U.S. tional and business risks within each business and additionally,
GAAP results and then excludes the impact of credit card securi- for JPMP, private equity risk. For a discussion of those risks, see
tizations. Securitization does not change JPMorgan Chase’s the risk management sections on pages 45–74 of this Annual
reported versus operating net income; however, it does affect the Report. The Firm allocates additional capital to its businesses
classification of items in the Consolidated statement of income. incorporating an “asset capital tax” on managed assets and
For a further discussion of credit card securitizations, see Chase some off–balance sheet instruments. In addition, businesses are
Cardmember Services on page 41 of this Annual Report. allocated capital equal to 100% of goodwill and 50% for certain
■ JPMorgan is the brand name.

JPMorgan Chase ■ Chase is the brand name.
Investment Treasury & Investment JPMorgan Chase Financial

Bank Securities Management & Partners Services
Services Private Banking
Product type: Businesses: Businesses: Business: Businesses:
• Advisory • Institutional Trust • Investment • Private equity • Home Finance
• Debt and equity Services Management investments • 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

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 esti- Capital charges are an integral part of the SVA measurement for
mates the portfolio effect on required economic capital based on each business. Under the Firm’s model, economic capital is either
correlations of risk across risk categories. This estimated diversifi- underallocated or overallocated to the business segments, as
cation benefit is not allocated to the business segments. compared with the Firm’s total common stockholders’ equity. The
revenue and SVA impact of this over/under allocation is reported
Performance measurement under Support Units and Corporate. See Glossary of terms on
The Firm uses the shareholder value added (“SVA”) framework page 131 of this Annual Report for a definition of SVA and page
to measure the performance of its business segments. To derive 44 of this Annual Report for more details.
SVA, a non-GAAP financial measure, for its business segments, JPMorgan Chase’s lines of business utilize individual perform-
the Firm applies a 12% (after-tax) cost of capital to each seg- ance metrics unique to the respective businesses to measure
ment, except JPMP – this business is charged a 15% (after-tax) their results versus those of their peers. For a further discussion
cost of capital. The capital elements and resultant capital charges of these metrics, see each respective line-of-business discussion
provide each business with the financial framework to evaluate the in this Annual Report.
trade-off between using capital versus its return to shareholders.
Contribution of businesses in 2003

Operating revenue (loss) Operating earnings (losses)
Consumer 42% Wholesale and other 58% Consumer 37% Wholesale and other 63%
Consumer includes: Wholesale and other includes: Consumer includes: Wholesale and other includes:
Chase Home Finance 12% Investment Bank 41% Chase Home Finance 20% Investment Bank 55%
Chase Cardmember Services 18% Treasury & Securities Services 12% Chase Cardmember Services 10% Treasury & Securities Services 8%
Chase Auto Finance 2% Investment Management & Chase Auto Finance 3% Investment Management &
Chase Regional Banking 7% Private Banking 8% Chase Regional Banking 1% Private Banking 4%
Chase Middle Market 4% JPMorgan Partners (1)% Chase Middle Market 5% JPMorgan Partners (4)%
Other consumer services (1)% Support Units and Corporate (2)% Other consumer services (2)% Support Units and Corporate —%

Investment Bank Operating revenue
(in millions)
Operating earnings
(in millions, except ratios)
JPMorgan Chase is one of the world’s leading $15,000

$4,000
investment banks, as evidenced by the breadth
$14,747
$14,440
$3,685
of its client relationships and product capabilities. $3,000
$12,498
The Investment Bank has extensive relationships
$2,857
$10,000
with corporations, financial institutions, govern- $2,000
ments and institutional investors worldwide. The $5,000

Firm provides a full range of investment banking
$1,303
$1,000
and commercial banking products and services,

including advising on corporate strategy and $0 $0
01 02 03 01 02 03
structure, capital raising in equity and debt Return on 14% 6% 19%
allocated
markets, sophisticated risk management, and capital
market-making in cash securities and derivative
instruments in all major capital markets. The
Investment Bank also commits the Firm’s own cap- Financial results overview
ital to proprietary investing and trading activities. The 2003 performance of IB was positively influenced by a low inter-
est-rate environment, a more favorable equities market and an
Selected financial data improving credit market, partially offset by continued weakness in
Year ended December 31, M&A activity.
(in millions, except ratios
and employees) 2003 2002 Change In 2003, IB reported record operating earnings of $3.7 billion, an
Operating revenue: increase of 183% compared with 2002. Revenue growth of 16%
Investment banking fees $ 2,855 $ 2,696 6% far outpaced expense growth of 6%. Credit costs were negative
Capital markets and $181 million in 2003, compared with $2.4 billion in 2002. Return
lending revenue: on allocated capital for the year was 19%.
Trading-related revenue (a) 6,418 4,479 43
Net interest income 2,277 2,642 (14) Operating revenue of $14.4 billion consisted of investment
Fees and commissions 1,646 1,619 2 banking fees for advisory and underwriting services; capital mar-
Securities gains 1,065 1,076 (1) kets revenue related to market-making, trading and investing; and
All other revenue 179 (14) NM revenue from corporate lending activities.
Total capital markets and
lending revenue 11,585 9,802 18
(in millions) 2003 2002 Change
Total operating revenue 14,440 12,498 16
Investment banking fees
Operating expense:
Advisory $ 640 $ 743 (14)%
Compensation expense 4,527 3,974 14
Equity underwriting 697 470 48
Noncompensation expense 3,596 3,451 4
Severance and related costs 347 587 (41) Debt underwriting 1,518 1,483 2
Total operating expense 8,470 8,012 6 Total $ 2,855 $ 2,696 6%
Operating margin 5,970 4,486 33
Credit costs (181) 2,393 NM
Investment banking fees of $2.9 billion were up 6%. While
Corporate credit allocation (36) (82) 56
Advisory fees declined by 14%, reflecting depressed levels of
Operating earnings $ 3,685 $ 1,303 183
M&A activity, debt underwriting fees were up 2%. This 2%
Shareholder value added:
Operating earnings less preferred
increase is primarily due to growth in high yield underwriting and
dividends $ 3,663 $ 1,281 186 structured finance fees and reflects a partial offset of lower loan
Less: cost of capital 2,295 2,390 (4) syndication fees. The key contributor to the overall increase in IB
Shareholder value added $ 1,368 $ (1,109) NM fees was equity underwriting revenue, which was up 48%,
Average allocated capital $ 19,134 $ 19,915 (4) reflecting increases in market share and underwriting volumes.
Average assets 510,894 495,464 3
Return on allocated capital 19% 6% 1,300bp
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.

Capital markets revenue includes Trading revenue, Fees and com-

Market shares and rankings (a)
missions, Securities gains, related Net interest income and Other
2003 2002 revenue. These activities are managed on a total-return revenue
December 31, Market share Ranking Market share Ranking basis, which includes operating revenue plus the change in unre-
alized gains or losses on investment securities and hedges (includ-
• Global syndicated loans 18% #1 23% #1
ed in Other comprehensive income) and internally transfer-priced
• Global investment-grade bonds 8 #2 9 #2
• Euro-denominated corporate
assets and liabilities. Capital markets revenue includes client and
international bonds 5 #6 6 #4 portfolio management revenues. Portfolio management reflects
• Global equity & equity-related 9 #4 4 #8 net gains or losses from IB’s proprietary trading and revenue from
• U.S. equity & equity-related 11 #4 6 #6 risk positions in client-related market-making activities.
• Global announced M&A 16 #5 14 #5
Capital markets and lending total-return revenue of
(a) Derived from Thomson Financial Securities Data, which reflects subsequent updates to prior-period
$11.6 billion was up 22% from last year due to strong client
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 par- and portfolio management revenue. Excluding Global Treasury,
ticipants will add up to more than 100%. Capital markets and lending total-return revenue was $9.9 bil-
lion, up 25% from the prior year.
The Firm improved its ranking in global equity and equity-related
Fixed income revenue of $7.0 billion was up 28% from last year.
underwriting to No. 4 from No. 8 in 2002. It also maintained its
The increase was driven by strong client driven activity in
No. 2 ranking in underwriting global investment-grade bonds,
European and emerging markets, as well as increased portfolio
its No. 1 ranking in global loan syndications and its No. 5 rank-
management revenue in credit and foreign exchange markets.
ing in global announced M&A.
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 rev- part of a loan restructuring, and changes in the credit valuation
enue related to both market-making and proprietary risk-taking adjustment (“CVA”), which is the component of the fair value of
across global fixed income markets, including government and a derivative that reflects the credit quality of the counterparty. See
corporate debt, foreign exchange, interest rate and commodi- page 59 of the Credit risk management section of this Annual
ties markets. Report for a further discussion of the CVA. Credit portfolio rev-
enue also includes the results of single-name and portfolio hedg-
Global Treasury manages the overall interest rate exposure and
ing arising from the Firm’s lending and derivative activities. See
investment securities portfolio of the Firm. It creates strategic bal-
pages 60–61 of the Credit risk management section of this
ance by providing a diversification benefit to the Firm’s trading,
Annual Report for a further discussion on credit derivatives.
lending and fee-based activities.
Equities includes client and portfolio management revenue
Credit portfolio revenue includes net interest income, fees and
related to market-making and proprietary risk-taking across
loan sale activity for IB’s commercial credit portfolio. Credit port-
global equity products, including cash instruments, derivatives
folio revenue also includes gains or losses on securities received as
and convertibles.

from last year, driven by positioning to benefit from interest rate
Client and Nonclient Revenue
movements and mortgage basis volatility. Credit portfolio rev-
enue of $1.4 billion was down 6% the result of tightening of Year ended December 31,
credit spreads in the second quarter of 2003, as well as lower (in millions) 2003 2002 Change
NII, which reflected lower levels of commercial loans. Equities Client revenue:
revenue of $1.5 billion was up 51% from last year due to higher Investment banking fees $ 2,855 $ 2,696 6%
client activity and portfolio management results in derivatives Capital markets revenue:
and convertibles. Trading revenue 4,485 3,840 17
Other capital markets revenue 2,904 2,875 1
Operating expense increased 6% from 2002, reflecting higher
Total client revenue 10,244 9,411 9
incentives related to improved financial performance and the
impact of expensing stock options. Noncompensation costs were Nonclient revenue:
up 4% from the prior year due to increases in technology and Treasury revenue 1,726 1,815 (5)
occupancy costs. Severance and related costs of $347 million Portfolio management revenue 2,470 1,272 94
were down 41%. The overhead ratio for 2003 was 59%, com- Total nonclient revenue 4,196 3,087 36
pared with 64% in 2002. Operating revenue $ 14,440 $ 12,498 16%
Credit costs were negative $181 million, $2.6 billion lower than
in the prior year, reflecting improvement in the overall credit average allocated capital by $712 million, and it increased share-
quality of the commercial portfolio and the restructuring of sev- holder value added by $65 million.
eral nonperforming commercial loans.
Business outlook
Corporate credit allocation In 2004, the composition of IB’s revenues is expected to change.
In 2003, IB assigned to TSS pre-tax earnings and allocated capi- Growth in client-related revenue may be offset by potentially
tal associated with clients shared with TSS. Prior periods have lower securities gains and NII. NII may be lower due to decreased
been revised to reflect this allocation. The impact to IB of this spreads on investment securities and lower loan volumes. The IB
change decreased pre-tax operating results by $36 million and credit outlook is stable, although credit costs may be higher than
the unusually low levels seen in 2003.
IB Dimensions of 2003 revenue diversification
By business revenue By client segment By geographic region
Fixed income capital markets 48% Financial institutions 54% North America 56%
Treasury 12% Diversified industries 12%
Europe, Middle East
Debt underwriting 11% 31%
TMT 11% & 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%

Treasury & Securities Services

Treasury & Securities Services, a global leader in Financial results overview
transaction processing and information services Treasury & Securities Services (“TSS”) operating earnings
to wholesale clients, is composed of three busi- decreased by 16% from 2002 while delivering a return on allo-
nesses. Institutional Trust Services provides a cated capital of 19%. Increased operating expense of 7% and
range of services to debt and equity issuers and a lower corporate credit allocation contributed to the lower
broker-dealers, from traditional trustee and pay- earnings.
ing-agent functions to global securities clearance. Operating revenue increased by 3%, with growth at
Investor Services provides securities custody and Institutional Trust Services (“ITS”) of 7%. ITS revenue growth
related functions, such as securities lending, came from debt product lines, increased volume in asset servic-
investment analytics and reporting, to mutual ing and the result of acquisitions which generated $29 million
funds, investment managers, pension funds, of new revenue in 2003. Treasury Services’ revenue rose 6% on
higher trade and commercial payment card revenue and
insurance companies and banks worldwide.
increased balance-related earnings, including higher balance
Treasury Services provides treasury and cash
deficiency fees resulting from the lower interest rate environ-
management, as well as payment, liquidity man- ment. Investor Services’ revenue contracted 4%, the result of
agement and trade finance services, to a diversi- lower NII due to lower interest rates, coupled with lower foreign
fied global client base of corporations, financial exchange and securities lending revenue.
institutions and governments.
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
Selected financial data
of $50 million on the sale of the Firm’s interest in a non-U.S.
securities clearing firm in 2002.
and employees) 2003 2002 Change Operating expense increased by 7%, attributable to higher
Operating revenue: severance, the impact of acquisitions, the cost associated with
Fees and commissions $ 2,562 $ 2,412 6% expensing of options, increased pension costs and charges to pro-
Net interest income 1,219 1,224 — vide for losses on subletting unoccupied excess real estate. The
All other revenue 211 256 (18) overhead ratio for TSS was 81%, compared with 77% in 2002.
Operating expense:
Operating revenue Operating earnings
Noncompensation expense 1,895 1,814 4 (in millions) (in millions, except ratios)
Severance and related costs 61 17 259
Total operating expense 3,217 2,994 7 $4,000 $800
$3,992
Operating margin 775 898 (14)

$3,892
$3,802
Credit costs 1 1 — $3,000 $600

$621
Corporate credit allocation 36 82 (56)

$593
$520
Operating earnings $ 520 $ 621 (16)
$2,000 $400
Operating earnings
$1,000 $200
less preferred dividends $ 517 $ 619 (16)
Less: cost of capital 325 323 1
Shareholder value added $ 192 $ 296 (35) $0 $0
01 02 03 01 02 03
Average allocated capital $ 2,711 $ 2,688 1 Return on 21% 23% 19%
allocated
Average assets 18,993 17,780 7
capital
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

TSS dimensions of 2003 revenue diversification
By business revenue By client segment By geographic region

Nonbank financial The Americas 64%
Treasury Services(a) 40% institutions 44%
Investor Services 36% Large corporations 21%
Middle market 18% Europe, Middle East
Institutional Trust Services 23% & Africa 27%
Banks 11%
Other 1% Public sector/governments 6% Asia/Pacific 9%
(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- Operating Revenue
tax earnings and the associated capital related to certain credit (in millions) 2003 2002 Change
exposures managed within IB’s credit portfolio on behalf of Treasury Services $ 1,927 $ 1,818 6%
clients shared with TSS. Prior periods have been revised to reflect Investor Services 1,449 1,513 (4)
this allocation. For 2003, the impact to TSS of this change Institutional Trust Services (a) 928 864 7
increased pre-tax operating results by $36 million and average Other (a)(b) (312) (303) (3)
allocated capital by $712 million, and it decreased SVA by Total Treasury & Securities Services $ 3,992 $ 3,892 3%
$65 million. Pre-tax operating results were $46 million lower
(a) Includes a portion of the $41 million gain on sale of a nonstrategic business in 2003:
than in 2002, reflecting lower loan volumes and higher related $1 million in Institutional Trust Services and $40 million in Other.
expenses, slightly offset by a decrease in credit costs. (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.
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 sup-
port business expansion.

Investment Management & Private Banking

Investment Management & Private Banking pro- particularly during the second half of the year. This global equity
vides investment management services to insti- market recovery, on a year-over-year basis, brought 2003’s aver-
tutional investors, high net worth individuals age annual market levels broadly back in line with 2002’s aver-
age. Investment performance in core institutional products
and retail customers, and it provides personal-
improved with all major asset classes, with U.S. institutional fixed
ized advice and solutions to wealthy individuals income and equities markets showing above-benchmark results.
and families.
IMPB’s operating earnings were 3% higher than in the prior
Selected financial data year, reflecting an improved credit portfolio, the benefits of
Year ended December 31, slightly higher revenues and managed expense growth. Quarterly
(in millions, except ratios earnings increased sequentially during the year. During the sec-
and employees) 2003 2002 Change
ond quarter of 2003, the Firm acquired American Century
Operating revenue: Retirement Plan Services Inc., a provider of defined contribution
Fees and commissions $ 2,207 $ 2,176 1% recordkeeping services, as part of its strategy to grow its U.S.
Net interest income 467 446 5
retail investment management business. The business was
All other revenue 204 217 (6)
renamed JPMorgan Retirement Plan Services (“RPS”). Return on
Operating expense: tangible allocated capital was 20%.
Noncompensation expense 1,235 1,221 1
Total operating expense 2,428 2,346 3 Operating revenue Operating earnings
(in millions) (in millions, except ratios)
Credit costs 35 85 (59)
Pre-tax margin 415 408 2 $400
$4,000
Operating earnings $ 268 $ 261 3
$358
Shareholder value added: $3,000
$300
$3,189
Operating earnings $2,878

$2,839
$268
$261
less preferred dividends $ 261 $ 254 3
$2,000 $200
Less: cost of capital 655 677 (3)
Shareholder value added $ (394) $ (423) 7
$1,000 $100
Tangible shareholder value added (a) $ 108 $ 84 29
Average allocated capital 5,454 5,643 (3)
Average assets 33,685 35,729 (6) $0
01 02 03 01 02 03
Return on tangible allocated capital(a) 20% 18% 200bp Return on 22% 18% 20%
Return on allocated capital 5 5 — tangible
allocated
Overhead ratio 84 83 100 capital
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 Operating revenue of $2.9 billion was 1% higher than in
as additional measures of the economics of the IMPB business segment. To derive these the prior year. The increase was driven by higher Fees and
measures, the impact of goodwill is excluded.
(b) Measures the percentage of operating earnings before taxes to total operating revenue.
commissions and Net interest income. The growth in Fees and
commissions reflected the acquisition of RPS and increased aver-
age equity market valuations in client portfolios, partly offset by
Financial results overview institutional net outflows. The growth in Net interest income
Investment Management & Private Banking (“IMPB”) operating reflected higher brokerage account balances and spreads. The
earnings are influenced by numerous factors, including equity, decline in all other revenue primarily reflected nonrecurring
fixed income and other asset valuations; investor flows and activ- items in 2002.
ity levels; investment performance; and expense and risk man-
Operating expense increased by 3%, reflecting the acquisition
agement. Global economic conditions rebounded in 2003, as
of RPS, higher compensation expense, and real estate and soft-
corporate earnings improved and the credit environment
ware write-offs, partly offset by the continued impact of
strengthened. During 2003, global equity markets rose (as exem-
expense management programs.
plified by the S&P 500 index, which rose by 26%, and the MSCI
World index, which rose by 31%), and investor activity levels The 59% decrease in credit costs reflected the improvement in
increased across IMPB’s retail and private bank client bases, the quality of the credit portfolio and recoveries.

IMPB dimensions of 2003 revenue diversification
By product By client segment By geographic region

Investment management/ The Americas 63%
fiduciary 71% Private bank 50%
Banking 18% Retail 28% Europe, Middle East

& Africa 26%
Brokerage 11% Institutional 22% Asia/Pacific 11%
Assets under supervision (“AUS”) at December 31, 2003, Assets under supervision (a)
were $758 billion, an increase of 18% from the prior year-end. At December 31, (in billions) 2003 2002 Change
Assets under management (“AUM”) increased by 9% to $559
Asset class:
billion, and custody, brokerage, administration and deposit Liquidity $ 160 $ 144 11%
accounts increased by 54% to $199 billion. The increase in Fixed income 144 149 (3)
AUM was driven by higher average equity market valuations in Equities and other 255 222 15
client portfolios, partly offset by institutional net outflows. Assets under management 559 515 9
Custody, brokerage, administration and deposits grew by $70 Custody/brokerage/administration/deposits 199 129 54
billion, driven by the acquisition of RPS ($41 billion), higher Total assets under supervision $ 758 $ 644 18%
average equity market valuations in client portfolios, and net
Client segment:
inflows from Private Bank clients. The diversification of AUS Retail
across product classes, client segments and geographic regions Assets under management $ 101 $ 80 26%
helped to mitigate the impact of market volatility on revenue. Custody/brokerage/administration/deposits 71 17 318
The Firm also has a 44% interest in American Century Assets under supervision 172 97 77
Companies, Inc., whose AUM totaled $87 billion and $72 billion
Private Bank
at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. These amounts Assets under management 138 130 6
are not included in the Firm’s AUM total above. Custody/brokerage/administration/deposits 128 112 14
Assets under supervision 266 242 10
Business outlook
Looking forward to 2004, IMPB believes it is well positioned for Institutional
a continued global market recovery. Improved investment per- Assets under management 320 305 5
formance and the continued execution of the Private Bank and Total assets under supervision $ 758 $ 644 18%
retail investment management strategies are expected to drive Geographic region:
operating earnings growth. Americas
Assets under management $ 360 $ 362 (1)%
Custody/brokerage/administration/deposits 170 100 70
Europe, Middle East & Africa and Asia/Pacific

Assets under management 199 153 30
Custody/brokerage/administration/deposits 29 29 —
Total assets under supervision $ 758 $ 644 18%
(a) Excludes AUM of American Century Companies, Inc.

JPMorgan Partners
JPMorgan Partners, the global private equity from the mark-to-market (“MTM”) value of its public portfolio,
organization of JPMorgan Chase, provides equity primarily in the Healthcare infrastructure, Technology and
and mezzanine capital financing to private Telecommunications sectors.
companies. It is a diversified investor, investing JPMP’s unrealized and realized gains were partially offset by net
in buyouts and in growth equity and venture write-offs (realized losses) and write-downs (unrealized losses)
opportunities across a variety of industry sectors, on the direct portfolio of $404 million. These write-downs and
with the objective of creating long-term value for write-offs included $239 million from the Technology and
Telecommunications sectors.
the Firm and third-party investors.
Selected financial data Private equity gains (losses)

Year ended December 31, Year ended December 31,
(in millions, except ratios (in millions) 2003 2002 Change
and employees) 2003 2002 Change Direct investments:
Operating revenue: Realized cash gains $ 535 $ 452 $ 83
Private equity gains (losses): Write-ups/(write-downs/
Direct investments $ 346 $ (583) $ 929 write-offs) (404) (825) 421
Private third-party fund investments (319) (150) (169) MTM gains (losses)(a) 215 (210) 425
Total private equity gains (losses) 27 (733) 760 Total direct investments 346 (583) 929
Net interest income (loss) (264) (302) 38 Private third-party fund
Fees and other revenue 47 59 (12) investments (319) (150) (169)
Total operating revenue (190) (976) 786 Total private equity gains (losses) $ 27 $ (733) 760
Operating expense: (a) Includes mark-to-market gains (losses) and reversals of mark-to-market gains (losses)
Compensation expense 135 128 7 due to public securities sales.
Noncompensation expense 140 171 (31)
Total operating expense 275 299 (24) Investment pace, portfolio diversification and
Operating margin (465) (1,275) 810 capital under management
Operating losses $ (293) $ (808) 515
In 2003, increased emphasis was placed on leveraged buyouts
and growth equity opportunities. JPMP’s direct investments for
Operating earnings
less preferred dividends $ (300) $ (815) 515
the Firm’s account in 2003 were $773 million, a 19% decline from
Less: cost of capital 869 944 (75) the prior year. Approximately 67% of direct investments were in
Shareholder value added $ (1,169) $ (1,759) 590 the Industrial, Consumer retail and services, Life sciences and
Average allocated capital $ 5,789 $ 6,293 (8)% Healthcare infrastructure sectors.
Average assets 8,818 9,677 (9)
JPMP reduced the size of the portfolio by 12%, largely the result
Full-time equivalent employees 316 357 (11)
of sales of third-party fund investments, which declined by
$744 million.
Financial results overview At December 31, 2003, the carrying value of JPMP’s public secu-
JPMorgan Partners (“JPMP”) recognized negative operating rities portfolio was $643 million, a 24% increase from 2002.
revenue of $190 million and operating losses of $293 million The increase resulted from higher market valuations and from
in 2003. Opportunities to realize value through sales, recapital- IPOs of certain portfolio investments, partially offset by ongoing
izations and initial public offerings (“IPOs”) of investments, sales activity.
although limited, improved during the year as the M&A and
Business outlook
IPO markets started to recover.
The Firm continues to regard JPMP as a strategic business that
Private equity gains totaled $27 million in 2003, compared with will create value over the long term. JPMP is seeking to sell
a loss of $733 million in 2002. JPMP recognized gains of $346 selected investments that are not central to its portfolio strategy,
million on direct investments and losses of $319 million on with the goal that, over time, JPMP’s private equity portfolio will
sales and writedowns of private third-party fund investments. represent a lower percentage of the Firm’s common stockholders’
equity.
Realized cash gains on direct investments of $535 million
increased 18% from the previous year. Realized cash gains were JPMP’s private equity portfolio and financial performance are
recognized across all industries but were primarily realized sensitive to the level of M&A, IPO and debt financing activity.
from the Industrial and Consumer retail and services sectors. Improved markets in 2004 could provide increased exit opportu-
In addition, JPMP recorded unrealized gains of $215 million nities and improved financial performance.

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.
JPMP's diversified investment portfolio (% of carrying value)
Direct investment portfolio by Direct investment portfolio by

geographic region at December 31, 2003 investment stage at December 31, 2003
North 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,
2003 2002
Real 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%
Financial services 11% Consumer retail Financial services 8% Consumer retail

& services 15% & services 12%
Technology 9% Technology 10%
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%

Chase Financial Services

Chase Financial Services is a major provider of these efforts, 2003 CFS operating earnings were a record
banking, investment and financing products $2.5 billion, an increase of 8% from 2002. Return on allocated
and services to consumers and small and middle capital was 28%, up from 27% in 2002. Shareholder value
added increased by 12%.
market businesses throughout the United States.
The majority of its revenues and earnings are pro- Operating revenue was $14.6 billion in 2003, an increase of 9%
duced by its national consumer credit businesses, over 2002. Net interest income increased 17% to $9.6 billion,
Chase Home Finance, Chase Cardmember Services reflecting the positive impact of the lower interest rate environ-
ment on consumer loan originations, particularly in Chase Home
and Chase Auto Finance. It also serves as a full-
Finance (“CHF”), and lower funding costs. The increase was partly
service bank for consumers and small- and medium- offset by reduced spreads on deposits. CHF revenue increased by
sized businesses through Chase Regional Banking 38% over the prior year, driven by strong operating revenue
and Chase Middle Market. (which excludes MSR hedging revenue) and, to a lesser extent,
higher MSR hedging revenue. Chase Cardmember Services
Selected financial data (“CCS”) revenue increased by 4%, the result of lower funding
costs, growth in average receivables and higher interchange fees
and employees) 2003 2002 Change earned on customer purchases. Chase Auto Finance (“CAF”)
revenue grew 23%, driven by record originations of almost
Operating revenue:
$28 billion and lower funding costs. Chase Regional Banking
Net interest income $ 9,620 $ 8,225 17%
(“CRB”) and Chase Middle Market (“CMM”) revenues decreased
Fees and commissions 3,561 3,489 2
Securities gains 382 493 (23) 9% and 1%, respectively, as a result of lower deposit spreads from
Mortgage fees and related income 892 988 (10) lower interest rates, partly offset by the effect of significantly
All other revenue 177 231 (23) higher deposit volumes compared with 2002.
Operating expense: Operating expense rose 10% to $7.3 billion. The increase in
Compensation expense 2,870 2,536 13 expense reflects higher business volume and higher compensa-
Noncompensation expense 4,299 3,943 9 tion costs. Partially offsetting higher expenses were savings
Severance and related costs 95 99 (4) achieved through Six Sigma and other productivity efforts. The
Total operating expense 7,264 6,578 10 overhead ratio increased slightly compared with a year ago.
Operating margin 7,368 6,848 8
Credit costs 3,431 3,159 9 Credit costs on a managed basis (which includes securitized
Operating earnings $ 2,495 $ 2,320 8 credit cards) of $3.4 billion increased by 9% compared with the
Shareholder value added: prior year. While credit quality remained stable in 2003, net
Operating earnings charge-offs increased by 2%. The increase in 2003 net charge-
less preferred dividends $ 2,484 $ 2,310 8 offs was driven by a 19% increase in average managed loans.
Less: cost of capital 1,050 1,034 2 For a further discussion of the consumer credit portfolio, see
Shareholder value added $ 1,434 $ 1,276 12 Credit Risk on pages 61–62 of this Annual Report.
Average allocated capital $ 8,750 $ 8,612 2
Average managed loans(a) 185,761 155,926 19 Chase Online enrollees reached 5.2 million, an increase of
Average managed assets(a) 215,216 179,635 20 more than 50% from year-end 2002. Total online payment
Average deposits 109,802 97,464 13 transactions increased by 42% to more than 27 million.
Return on allocated capital 28% 27% 100bp
Overhead ratio 50 49 100 Operating revenue Operating earnings
Full-time equivalent employees 46,155 43,543 6% (in millions) (in millions, except ratios)
(a) Includes credit card receivables that have been securitized. $2,500
$15,000
$2,495
$14,632
$2,320
Financial results overview $2,000

$13,426
$12,000
Chase Financial Services (“CFS”) operating earnings are

$10,828
$9,000 $1,500
affected by numerous factors, including U.S. economic condi-
$1,414
tions, the volatility and level of interest rates, and competition in $6,000 $1,000
its various product lines. In response to the continuing
low–interest rate environment and competition in the market- $3,000 $500
place, in 2003, CFS focused its efforts on growing or maintain-
ing market share in its various businesses, enhancing its online $0 $0
01 02 03 01 02 03
banking capabilities, disciplined expense management and Return on 18% 27% 28%
allocated
maintaining the credit quality of its loan portfolios. As a result of capital

CFS’s online offerings ended the year ranked No. 3 in credit 100%. In CAF, online application processing reached 95% dealer
card and No. 6 in banking by Gómez Scorecards™, a service penetration, while consumer adoption of Chase’s online automo-
which measures the quality of online financial services offerings. bile offerings continued to grow.
CCS accounts sourced from the Internet channel reached 16%
Business outlook
of new account originations and represented 5% of the active
In 2004, CFS anticipates operating revenue and earnings will be
account base in 2003. In CRB, several enhancements to con-
lower, primarily due to a decrease in production revenue in CHF,
sumer online offerings – including check imaging, statement
as refinancing activity declines from the record levels set in 2003.
imaging and banking alerts – resulted in significant activation of
While CFS expects the other retail businesses to report modest
online capabilities by customers. CHF continued its emphasis on
revenue growth and improved efficiencies, this growth may not
providing online capabilities to its business-to-business partners
offset the lower mortgage earnings.
and increased its direct-to-consumer web usage by more than
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 Portfolio Lending. The Production business originates and sells
mortgages. The Servicing business manages accounts for CHF’s
The following table sets forth key revenue components of CHF’s four million customers. The Portfolio Lending business holds for
business. investment adjustable-rate first mortgage loans, home equity
and manufactured housing loans originated and purchased
Year ended December 31, (in millions)
through the Production channels. These three segments provide
Operating revenue 2003 2002 Change
CHF with balance to enable it to benefit across varying business
Home Finance: cycles. The Production segment is most profitable when mort-
Operating revenue $ 3,800 $ 2,751 38%
gage rates are declining and origination volume is high. Alterna-
MSR hedging revenue: tively, the Servicing business collects more fees when rates are
MSR valuation adjustments (785) (4,504) 83 rising and mortgage prepayments are low. Portfolio Lending
Hedging gains (losses) 1,015 4,681 (78)
provides increasing NII, with growth in home equity and
Total revenue (a) $ 4,030 $ 2,928 38% adjustable-rate first mortgage lending. The counter-cyclical
(a) Includes Mortgage fees and related income, Net interest income and Securities gains. (Production/Servicing) and complementary (Portfolio Lending)
nature of these businesses, in combination with financial risk
CHF is the fourth largest mortgage originator and servicer in the management, enabled CHF to produce record earnings.
United States, with more than four million customers. CHF con-
The residential mortgage market had a record year in 2003,
ducts business in all 50 states and has approximately 17,000
with an estimated $3.8 trillion in industry-wide origination vol-
employees in more than 300 locations nationwide. CHF offers an
ume. The strong market was driven by historically low interest
extensive array of residential mortgage products delivered across
rates, higher consumer confidence, improved housing afford-
a variety of distribution channels and customer touch points.
ability and exceptionally strong new and existing home sales.
CHF comprises three key businesses: Production, Servicing and
CHF capitalized on this environment, achieving record levels of

loan originations and applications. CHF’s production market gains/(losses) on AFS Securities were $(144) million at December 31,
share grew from 5.8% in 2002 to 7.6% in 2003, primarily 2003, and $377 million at December 31, 2002. For a further dis-
due to successful expansion in first mortgage and home equity cussion of MSRs, see Critical Accounting Estimates on page 77
lending through growth in strategic, higher-margin distribution and Note 16 on pages 107–109 of this Annual Report.
channels such as retail, wholesale, telephone-based and e-com-
Operating expense of $1.7 billion increased by 28% from 2002
merce. Origination volume totaled a record $284 billion, an
as a result of growth in origination volume as well as a higher
increase of 82% from 2002. Home Equity volume, a strategic
level of mortgage servicing. Substantial portions of CHF’s
growth area, increased by 71% from the prior year. In addition,
expenses are variable in nature and, accordingly, fluctuate with
despite record levels of loan prepayments in 2003, loans serv-
the overall level of origination and servicing activity. In addition
iced increased by 10% from year-end 2002 to $470 billion at
to increases brought on by higher business volumes, expenses
December 31, 2003.
increased due to higher performance-related incentives, as well
CHF manages and measures its results from two key perspec- as strategic investments made to further expand into higher-
tives: its operating businesses (Production/Servicing and Portfolio margin business sectors, along with production-related restruc-
Lending) and revenue generated through managing the interest turing efforts initiated in the fourth quarter of 2003. These
rate risk associated with MSRs. The table below reconciles man- increases were partially offset by continued gains in productivity
agement’s perspective on CHF’s business results to the reported and benefits realized from Six Sigma initiatives during 2003.
GAAP line items shown on the Consolidated statement of
Credit costs of $240 million for 2003 increased by 26% from
income and in the related Notes to consolidated financial state-
2002 due to a higher provision for credit losses, primarily the
ments. While the operating and hedging activities are interrelated,
result of higher loan balances. Credit quality continued to be
the MSR hedging function is a risk management activity subject
strong relative to 2002, as evidenced by a lower net charge-off
to significant volatility as market interest rates and yield curves
ratio and 30+ day delinquency rate.
fluctuate. As a result, operating business results are reported
separately from hedging results to gain a better perspective on
Business-related metrics
each activity.
Operating basis revenue (in billions, except ratios) 2003 2002 Change
Operating MSR hedging Reported
Origination volume by channel
Year ended December 31, Retail, wholesale, and correspondent $ 201 $ 113 78%
(in millions) 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 Correspondent negotiated transactions 83 43 93
Net interest income $ 2,204 $ 1,208 $ 575 $ 234 $ 2,779 $ 1,442 Total $ 284 $ 156 82%
Securities gains — — 359 498 359 498
Origination volume by product
Mortgage fees and
First mortgage $ 260 $ 142 83%
related income 1,596 1,543 (704) (555) 892 988
Home equity 24 14 71
Total $ 3,800 $ 2,751 $ 230 $ 177 $ 4,030 $ 2,928
Total $ 284 $ 156 82%
Loans serviced $ 470 $ 426 10%
CHF achieved record financial performance in 2003, as total End-of-period outstandings 73.7 63.6 16
revenue of $4.0 billion increased by 38% from 2002. Record Total average loans owned 74.1 56.2 32
MSR carrying value 4.8 3.2 50
operating earnings of $1.3 billion increased by 48% from 2002.
Number of customers (in millions) 4.1 4.0 2
CHF’s operating revenue (excluding MSR hedging revenue) of 30+ day delinquency rate 1.81% 3.07% (126)bp
$3.8 billion increased by 38% over 2002. The strong perform- Net charge-off ratio 0.18 0.25 (7)
ance 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 bil-
lion of aggregate derivative gains, realized gains on sales of AFS
securities and net interest earned on AFS securities. Unrealized

Chase Cardmember Services on an operating basis are composed of the Provision for credit
losses in the Consolidated statement of income (which includes a
CCS is the fourth largest U.S. credit card issuer, with $52.3 billion
provision for credit card receivables in the Consolidated balance
in managed receivables and $89.7 billion in total volume (cus-
sheet) as well as the credit costs associated with securitized credit
tomer purchases, cash advances and balance transfers). In addi-
card loans. As the holder of the residual interest in the securitiza-
tion, CCS is the largest U.S. merchant acquirer (an entity that
tion trust, CCS bears its share of the credit costs for securitized
contracts with merchants to facilitate the acceptance of transac-
loans. In JPMorgan Chase’s Consolidated financial statements,
tion cards), with annual sales volume in excess of $260 billion,
credit costs associated with securitized credit card loans reduce the
through a joint venture with First Data Merchant Services.
noninterest income remitted to the Firm from the securitization
CCS’s operating results exclude the impact of credit card securitiza- trust. This income is reported in Credit card fees, in Fees and
tions. CCS periodically securitizes a portion of its credit card port- commissions, over the life of the securitization.
folio by transferring a pool of credit card receivables to a trust,
Securitization does not change CCS’s reported versus operating
which sells securities to investors. CCS receives fee revenue for
net income; however, it does affect the classification of items on
continuing to service those receivables and additional revenue
the Consolidated statement of income. The abbreviated financial
from any interest and fees on the receivables in excess of the inter-
information presented below is prepared on a managed basis
est paid to investors, net of credit losses and servicing fees. CCS
and includes the effect of securitizations.
reports credit costs on a managed or operating basis. Credit costs
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, to make progress in cross-selling accounts to other CFS customers
driven by higher revenue, partially offset by higher credit costs (13% of new account originations). These multiple-relationship
and expenses. The operating environment reflected continued accounts generate more revenue and comprise 11% of the
competitive pricing, a record level of bankruptcy filings and low active account base.
receivables growth. This was partly the result of mortgage refi-
Operating expense of $2.2 billion increased by 2%, reflecting disci-
nancing activity, which permitted consumers to use cash
plined expense management and Six Sigma and productivity efforts.
received in their mortgage refinancings to pay down credit card
Growth in expenses was primarily due to volume-related costs.
debt. CCS was able to grow earnings and originate a record
number of new accounts by offering rewards-based products, Credit costs were $2.9 billion, an increase of 5% from 2002. The
improving operating efficiency, delivering high-level customer increase in credit costs primarily reflected 4% higher net charge-
service and improving retention and card usage. Management offs due to an increase in average outstandings. Conservative risk
believes that the shift towards rewards-based products positions management and rigorous collection practices contributed to
CCS to capture consumer wallet share in a highly competitive, CCS’s stable credit quality.
commoditized marketplace. In 2003, CCS launched several new
rewards products, including the ChasePerfect card, the Business-related metrics
Marathon co-branded card and the GM Small Business card. As of or for the year ended December 31,
(in billions, except ratios) 2003 2002 Change
Operating revenue increased by 4% to $6.2 billion. Net interest
End-of-period outstandings $ 52.3 $ 51.1 2%
income increased by 2%, reflecting lower funding costs, partly
Average outstandings 50.9 49.1 4
offset by a lower yield. The 4% growth in average receivables
Total volume (a) 89.7 84.0 7
was in line with industry trends. Noninterest revenue increased New accounts (in millions) 4.2 3.7 14
by 6%, primarily reflecting higher interchange revenue, partially Active accounts (in millions) 16.5 16.5 —
offset by higher rebate costs. The increase in interchange rev- Total accounts (in millions) 30.8 29.2 5
enue reflects higher purchase volume due to new account 30+ day delinquency rate 4.68% 4.67% 1bp
growth and the movement towards higher spending using Net charge-off ratio 5.89 5.89 —
rewards-based products. During 2003, CCS originated 4.2 million Overhead ratio 36 36 —
new accounts via multiple distribution channels. CCS continues (a) Sum of total customer purchases, cash advances and balance transfers.

Chase Auto Finance loans outstanding, higher origination volume and higher perform-
ance-based incentives. CAF’s overhead ratio improved from 36%
CAF is the largest U.S. bank originator of automobile loans and in 2002 to 35% in 2003, as a result of strong revenue growth, con-
leases, with more than 2.9 million accounts. In 2003, CAF had a tinued productivity gains and disciplined expense management.
record number of automobile loan and lease originations, growing
by 10% over 2002 to $27.8 billion. Loan and lease receivables of Credit costs increased 18% to $205 million, primarily reflecting a
$43.2 billion at December 31, 2003, were 16% higher than at the 32% increase in average loan and lease receivables. Credit quality
prior year-end. Despite a challenging operating environment continued to be strong relative to 2002, as evidenced by a lower
reflecting slightly declining new car sales in 2003 and increased net charge-off ratio and 30+ day delinquency rate.
competition, CAF’s market share among automobile finance
CAF also comprises Chase Education Finance, a top provider of
companies improved to 6.1% in 2003 from 5.7% in 2002. The
government-guaranteed and private loans for higher education.
increase in market share was the result of strong organic growth
Loans are provided through a joint venture with Sallie Mae, a
and an origination strategy that allies the business with manufac-
government-sponsored enterprise and the leader in funding and
turers and dealers. CAF’s relationships with several major car
servicing education loans. Chase Education Finance’s origination
manufacturers contributed to 2003 growth, as did CAF’s dealer
volume totaled $2.7 billion, an increase of 4% from last year.
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. Loan and lease receivables $ 43.2 $ 37.4 16%
Average loan and lease receivables 41.7 31.7 32
Net interest income grew by 33% compared with 2002. The
Automobile origination volume 27.8 25.3 10
increase was driven by strong operating performance due to Automobile market share 6.1% 5.7% 40bp
higher average loans and leases outstanding, reflecting continued 30+ day delinquency rate 1.46 1.54 (8)
strong origination volume and lower funding costs. Net charge-off ratio 0.41 0.51 (10)
Operating expense of $292 million increased by 18% compared
with 2002. The increase in expenses was driven by higher average
Chase Regional Banking While CRB continues to position itself for growth, decreased
deposit spreads related to the low-rate environment and
CRB is the No. 1 bank in the New York tri-state area and a top increased credit costs resulted in an 80% decline in CRB
five bank in Texas (both ranked by retail deposits), providing operating earnings from 2002. This decrease was partly offset
payment, liquidity, investment, insurance and credit products by an 8% increase in total average deposits.
and services to three primary customer segments: small busi-
ness, affluent and retail. Within these segments, CRB serves Operating revenue of $2.6 billion decreased by 9% compared
326,000 small businesses, 433,000 affluent consumers and with 2002. Net interest income declined by 11% to $1.7 billion,
2.6 million mass-market consumers. primarily attributable to the lower interest rate environment.
Noninterest revenue decreased 6% to $927 million due to lower
CRB’s continued focus on expanding customer relationships deposit service fees, decreased debit card fees and one-time
resulted in a 14% increase in core deposits (for this purpose, gains in 2002. CRB’s revenue does not include funding profits
core deposits are total deposits less time deposits) from earned on its deposit base; these amounts are included in the
December 31, 2002, and a 77% increase in the cross-sell of results of Global Treasury.
Chase credit products over 2002. In 2003, mortgage and home
equity originations through CRB’s distribution channels were Operating expense of $2.4 billion increased by 7% from 2002.
$3.4 billion and $4.7 billion, respectively. Branch-originated credit The increase was primarily due to investments in technology within
cards totaled 77,000, contributing to 23% of CRB customers the branch network; also contributing were higher compensation
holding Chase credit cards. CRB is compensated by CFS’s credit expenses related to increased staff levels and higher severance costs
businesses for the home finance and credit card loans it origi- as a result of continued restructuring. This increase in operating
nates and does not retain these balances.

expense was partly offset by Six Sigma and other productivity CRB 2003 deposit mix – $75 billion
efforts. CRB’s overhead ratio increased to 93% in 2003 from 79%
in 2002, reflecting both the decline in revenues and an increase of Savings 47%
expenses.
Demand deposits 18%
Credit costs of $77 million increased by $88 million compared Interest checking 14%
with 2002 primarily driven by the release of the Allowance for
Time 11%
loan losses in 2002.
Money market 10%
As of or for the year ended December 31, 2003 2002 Change
Total average deposits (in billions) $ 75.1 $ 69.8 8%
CRB 2002 deposit mix – $70 billion
Total client assets (a)(in billions) 108.7 103.6 5
Number of branches 529 528 —
Number of ATMs 1,730 1,876 (8) Savings 46%
Overhead ratio 93% 79% 1,400bp Demand deposits 18%
(a) Deposits, money market funds and/or investment assets (including annuities).
Time 15%
Interest checking 13%
Money market 8%
Chase Middle Market and 3% higher loans compared with 2002. Noninterest revenue
increased by 6%, primarily reflecting higher deposit service and
CMM is a premier provider of commercial banking and corporate corporate finance fees. Deposit service fees increased, as the
financial services to companies with annual sales of $10 million lower interest rate environment resulted in reduced values of
to $1 billion, as well as to not-for-profit, real estate and public- customers’ compensating balances; consequently, customers
sector entities. CMM maintains a leadership position in the New paid incremental fees for deposit services.
York tri-state market and select Texas markets; it also leverages
Operating expense was $871 million, an increase of 4% com-
its expertise in distinct industry segments, such as Technology,
pared with 2002. The increase in expenses was due to higher
Corporate mortgage finance, Entertainment and certain regional
severance costs and higher performance-based incentives, partly
markets, such as Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston and Denver.
offset by savings from Six Sigma and other productivity initiatives.
The CMM relationship management model brings customized
Credit costs of $7 million were down 90% from the prior year.
solutions to more than 12,000 middle market companies, utiliz-
This decrease was due to a lower required allowance and 36%
ing the products and services of the entire Firm. Products and
lower net charge-offs, reflecting strong credit quality.
services include cash management, lines of credit, term loans,
structured finance, syndicated lending, M&A advisory, risk man- The focus for 2004 will be on generating revenue growth
agement, international banking services, lease financing and through effective cross-selling, the delivery of superior client
asset-based lending. CMM is organized by geography, industry service and the management of credit quality and expenses.
and product to deliver greater value to customers. CMM’s 2003
and 2002 results included 100% of the revenues and expenses Business-related metrics
attributed to the shared activities with Treasury Services. See
Segment results on page 27 of this Annual Report for a discus- As of or for the year ended December 31,
sion of the Firm’s revenue and expense-sharing agreements
among business segments. Total average loans $ 14.1 $ 13.7 3%
Total average deposits 28.2 24.1 17
CMM’s operating earnings of $324 million increased by 3% Nonperforming average loans as
compared with 2002. Operating revenue of $1.4 billion a % of total average loans 1.19% 1.89% (70)bp
decreased by 1% compared with the prior year. NII was down Net charge-off ratio 0.49 0.78 (29)
5% due to lower spreads, partly offset by 17% higher deposits Overhead ratio 61 58 300

Support Units and Corporate

Selected financial data For 2003, Support Units and Corporate had operating earnings of
Year ended December 31, $44 million, compared with an operating loss of $313 million in
(in millions, except employees) 2003 2002 Change 2002, driven primarily by income tax benefits not allocated to the
Operating revenue $ (626) $ (626) $ — business segments.
Operating expense 34 (73) 107
In allocating the allowance (and provision) for credit losses, each
Credit costs 124 132 (8)
Pre-tax loss (784) (685) (99) business is responsible for its credit costs. Although the Support
Income tax benefit 828 372 456 Units and Corporate sector has no traditional credit assets, the
Operating earnings (losses) $ 44 $ (313) 357 residual component of the allowance, which is available for losses
Average allocated capital $ 1,150 $ (1,783) 2,933 in any business segment, is maintained at the corporate level. For
Average assets 20,737 21,591 (854) a further discussion of the residual component, see Allowance for
Shareholder value added 78 88 (10) credit losses on pages 64–65 of this Annual Report.
Full-time equivalent employees 9,838 13,023 (3,185)
Average allocated capital was $2.9 billion higher than 2002,
reflecting a reduction in risks and economic capital allocated to
The Support Units and Corporate sector includes technology, the business segments.
legal, audit, finance, human resources, risk management, real
estate management, procurement, executive management and In December 2002, JPMorgan Chase entered into a seven-year
marketing groups within Corporate. The technology and pro- agreement with IBM to outsource portions of the Firm’s internal
curement services organizations seek to provide services to the technology infrastructure services. Commencing April 1, 2003,
Firm’s businesses that are competitive with comparable third- 2,800 employees were transferred to IBM in connection with this
party providers in terms of price and service quality. These units agreement. The agreement is expected to transform the Firm’s
use the Firm’s global scale and technology to gain efficiencies technology infrastructure through increased cost variability,
through consolidation, standardization, vendor management access to the best research and innovation, and improved service
and outsourcing. levels. By moving from a traditional fixed-cost approach to one
with increased capacity and cost variability, the Firm expects to
Support Units and Corporate reflects the application of the be able to respond more quickly to changing market conditions.
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 seg-
ments, 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 compo-
nent 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.

Risk and Capital management
Risk management at JPMorgan Chase is guided by several chaired by the Chief Risk Officer, focuses on credit risk, market
principles, including: risk, operational risk, business risk, private equity risk and fiduci-
ary risk. Both risk committees have decision-making authority,
• defined risk governance
with major policy decisions and risk exposures subject to review
• independent oversight by the Office of the Chairman.
• continual evaluation of risk appetite, managed through risk In addition to the Risk Policy Committee, the Audit Committee
limits of the Board of Directors is responsible for oversight of guide-
• portfolio diversification lines and policies to govern the process by which risk assess-
ment and management is undertaken. In addition, the Audit
• risk assessment and measurement, including Value-at-Risk Committee reviews with management the system of internal
analysis and portfolio stress testing controls and financial reporting that is relied upon to provide
• performance measurement (SVA) that allocates risk-adjusted reasonable assurance of compliance with the Firm’s operational
capital to business units and charges a cost against that capital. risk management processes.
Risk management and oversight begins with the Risk Policy The Firm’s use of SVA, which incorporates a risk-adjusted capital
Committee of the Board of Directors, which reviews the gover- methodology as its primary performance measure, has strength-
nance of these activities, delegating the formulation of policy ened its risk management discipline by charging the businesses
and day-to-day risk oversight and management to the Office of the cost of capital linked to the risks associated with their
the Chairman and to two corporate risk committees: the Capital respective activities.
Committee and Risk Management Committee.
For a discussion of capital allocation methodologies, see the
The Capital Committee, chaired by the Chief Financial Officer, respective risk management sections on pages 46–74 of this
focuses on Firm-wide capital planning, internal capital allocation Annual Report.
and liquidity management. The Risk Management Committee,
Risk Policy Committee

of the Board of Directors
• Oversees risk management
Office of the Chairman
• Formulation of policy
• Reviews major risk exposures
Capital Committee Risk Management Committee
• Provides a forum for discussion of capital adequacy and liquidity issues • Provides oversight and direction of the risk profile and risk appetite of
• Recommends targeted capital ratios and monitors adherence to those ratios the Firm
• Reviews the allocation of capital within the Firm • Reviews risk exposures on an integrated basis, including the interdependen-
cies among JPMorgan Chase’s various risk categories
• Monitors Firm-wide and parent company liquidity and approves collateral
and liquidity planning policies • Provides a forum for appropriate discussion of risk issues
• Reviews the adequacy of the Firm’s capital and debt levels • Reviews and approves corporate policies and risk strategies to ensure that
risk management and monitoring accurately reflect the business mandate,
• Recommends balance sheet limits by line of business accepted practice, and legal and regulatory requirements
• Recommends dividend and stock repurchase policies • Advises on aggregate limits and authorities to control risk
• Reviews funds transfer pricing policies and methodologies • Monitors significant risk exposures, concentrations of positions, asset quality,
and significant position and risk limit changes, paying particular attention to
stress scenarios
• Establishes sub-committees, as appropriate, to focus on specific risk
disciplines and correlations

Capital and Liquidity management 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
Capital management
acquisitions. Additionally, JPMorgan Chase assesses an “asset
JPMorgan Chase’s capital management framework helps to capital tax” against managed assets and some off–balance sheet
optimize the use of capital by: instruments. These assessments recognize that certain minimum
• Determining the amount of capital commensurate with: regulatory capital ratios must be maintained by the Firm.
- internal assessments of risk as estimated by the Firm’s JPMorgan Chase also estimates the portfolio effect on required
economic capital allocation model economic capital based on correlations of risk across risk cate-
gories. This estimated diversification benefit leads to a reduction
- the Firm’s goal to limit losses, even under stress conditions
in required economic capital for the Firm.
- targeted regulatory ratios and credit ratings
The total required economic capital for JPMorgan Chase as deter-
- the Firm’s liquidity management strategy.
mined by its models and after considering the Firm’s estimated
• Directing capital investment to activities with the most diversification benefits is then compared with available common
favorable risk-adjusted returns. stockholders’ equity to evaluate overall capital utilization. The
Firm’s policy is to maintain an appropriate level of excess capital to
Available versus required capital
provide for growth and additional protection against losses.
Yearly Averages
(in billions) 2003 2002 The Firm’s capital in excess of that which is internally required as of
Common stockholders’ equity $ 43.0 $ 41.4 December 31, 2003, increased by $2.7 billion over December 31,
Economic risk capital: 2002. The change was primarily due to an increase in average
Credit risk 13.1 14.0 common stockholders’ equity of $1.6 billion and to a $1.3 bil-
Market risk 4.5 4.7 lion reduction in average capital allocated to business activities,
Operational risk 3.5 3.5 principally in relation to credit risk and private equity risk. Credit
Business risk 1.7 1.8 risk capital decreased by $0.9 billion from the prior year, primarily
Private equity risk 5.4 5.8 due to a reduction in commercial exposures, improvement in
Economic risk capital 28.2 29.8
the credit quality of the commercial portfolio and an increase
Goodwill / Intangibles 8.9 8.8 in hedging of commercial exposures using single-name credit
Asset capital tax 4.1 3.9
derivatives. Private equity risk decreased primarily as a result of
Capital against nonrisk factors 13.0 12.7
the reduction in JPMP’s private equity portfolio.
Total capital allocated to business activities 41.2 42.5
Diversification effect (5.1) (5.3) Regulatory capital: JPMorgan Chase’s primary federal banking
Total required internal capital 36.1 37.2 regulator, the Federal Reserve Board, establishes capital require-
Firm capital in excess of required capital $ 6.9 $ 4.2 ments, 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
Economic risk capital: JPMorgan Chase assesses capital ade-
the Comptroller of the Currency establishes similar capital
quacy utilizing internal risk assessment methodologies. The Firm
requirements and standards for the Firm’s national bank sub-
assigns economic capital based primarily on five risk factors:
sidiaries, including Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. As of
credit risk, market risk, operational risk and business risk for
December 31, 2003, the financial holding company and its
each business, and private equity risk, principally for JPMP. The
banking subsidiaries maintained capital levels well in excess of
methodologies quantify these risks and assign capital accordingly.
the minimum capital requirements.
These methodologies are discussed in the risk management
sections of this Annual Report. 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
A review of the Firm’s risk and capital measurement methodolo-
5.6%. The Capital Committee reviews the Firm’s capital levels
gies was completed in 2003, resulting in the reallocation of
and policies regularly in light of changing economic conditions
capital among the risk categories and certain business segments.
and business needs. At December 31, 2003, Total capital of
The new capital measurement methodologies did not result in a
JPMorgan Chase (the sum of Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital) was
significant change in the total capital allocated to the business
$59.8 billion, an increase of $5.3 billion from December 31,
segments as a whole. Prior periods have been adjusted to reflect
2002. This increase reflected a $5.6 billion increase in Tier 1
the revised capital measurement methodologies. For a further
capital, primarily driven by a $3.8 billion increase in retained
discussion of these new methodologies, see Capital allocation for
earnings (net income less common and preferred dividends)
credit risk, operational risk and business risk, and private equity
generated during the period, $1.1 billion in Tier 1 trust preferred
risk on pages 52, 73 and 74, respectively, of this Annual Report.
net issuance and $1.3 billion in net stock issuances related to
Internal capital allocation methodologies may change in the
employee stock-based benefit plans. This increase was partially
future to reflect refinements of economic capital methodologies.
offset by a higher deduction for goodwill and nonqualifying

intangible assets primarily due to an acquisition in the fourth JPMorgan Chase utilizes liquidity monitoring tools to help main-
quarter of 2003. There was minimal impact to the Firm’s Tier 1 tain appropriate levels of liquidity through normal and stress
and Total capital ratios due to the adoption of FIN 46, as the periods. The Firm’s liquidity analytics rely on management’s judg-
Federal Reserve Board provided interim regulatory capital relief ment about JPMorgan Chase’s ability to liquidate assets or use
related to asset-backed commercial paper conduits and trust them as collateral for borrowings. These analytics also involve
preferred vehicles. The effect of FIN 46 on the Firm’s leverage estimates and assumptions, taking into account credit risk man-
ratio at December 31, 2003, was a reduction of approximately agement’s historical data on the funding of loan commitments
13 basis points as no regulatory capital relief was provided for (e.g., commercial paper back-up facilities), liquidity commitments
leverage calculations. The Firm revised its calculation of risk- to SPEs, commitments with rating triggers and collateral posting
weighted assets during the third quarter of 2003; capital ratios requirements. For further discussion of SPEs and other off–bal-
for periods ended prior to June 30, 2003, have not been recal- ance sheet arrangements, see Off–balance sheet arrangements
culated. Additional information regarding the Firm’s capital and contractual cash obligations on pages 49–50 as well as
ratios and a more detailed discussion of federal regulatory capi- Note 1, Note 13 and Note 14 on pages 86–87, 100–103 and
tal standards are presented in Note 26 on pages 114–115 of 103–106, respectively, of this Annual Report.
this Annual Report.
The Firm’s three primary measures of liquidity are:
Stock repurchases: The Firm did not repurchase any shares of
• Holding company short-term surplus: Measures the parent
its common stock during 2003. Management expects to recom-
holding company’s ability to repay all obligations with a matu-
mend to the Board of Directors that the Firm resume its share
rity under one year at a time when the ability of the Firm’s
repurchase program after the completion of the pending merger
banks to pay dividends to the parent holding company is con-
with Bank One.
strained.
Dividends: Dividends declared in any quarter are determined by
• Cash capital surplus: Measures the Firm’s ability to fund assets
JPMorgan Chase’s Board of Directors. The dividend is currently
on a fully collateralized basis, assuming access to unsecured
$0.34 per share per quarter.
funding is lost.
• Basic surplus: Measures JPMorgan Chase Bank’s ability to sustain
Liquidity management 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.
In managing liquidity, management considers
Each of the Firm’s liquidity surplus positions, as of December 31,
a variety of liquidity risk measures as well as
2003, indicates that JPMorgan Chase’s long-dated funding, includ-
market conditions, prevailing interest rates, ing core deposits, exceeds illiquid assets and that the Firm’s obliga-
liquidity needs and the desired maturity profile tions can be met if access to funding is temporarily impaired.
of its liabilities.
An extension of the Firm’s ongoing liquidity management is its
Overview contingency funding plan, which is intended to help the Firm
manage through liquidity stress periods. The plan considers tem-
Liquidity risk arises from the general funding needs of the Firm’s
porary and long-term stress scenarios and forecasts potential
activities and in the management of its assets and liabilities.
funding needs when access to unsecured funding is severely lim-
JPMorgan Chase recognizes the importance of sound liquidity
ited or nonexistent. These scenarios take into account both on–
management as a key factor in maintaining strong credit ratings
and off–balance sheet exposures, evaluating access to funds by
and utilizes a liquidity framework intended to maximize liquidity
the parent holding company, JPMorgan Chase Bank and Chase
access and minimize funding costs. Through active liquidity
Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., separately.
management, the Firm seeks to ensure that it will be able to
replace maturing obligations when due and fund its assets at Funding
appropriate maturities and rates in all market environments.
Credit ratings: The cost and availability of unsecured financing
Liquidity management framework are influenced by credit ratings. A reduction in these ratings could
adversely affect the Firm’s access to liquidity sources, and could
The Capital Committee sets the overall liquidity policy for the
increase the cost of funding or trigger additional collateral require-
Firm, reviews the contingency funding plan and recommends bal-
ments. Critical factors in maintaining high credit ratings include: a
ance sheet targets for the Firm. The Liquidity Risk Committee,
stable and diverse earnings stream; strong capital ratios; strong
reporting to the Capital Committee, identifies and monitors liq-
credit quality and risk management controls; diverse funding
uidity issues, provides policy guidance and maintains an evolving
sources; and strong liquidity monitoring procedures.
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.

The credit ratings of JPMorgan Chase’s parent holding company credit ratings of the issuing entity. Transactions between the
and JPMorgan Chase Bank as of December 31, 2003, were as Firm and its securitization structures are reflected in JPMorgan
follows: Chase’s financial statements; these relationships include retained
interests in securitization trusts, liquidity facilities and derivative
JPMorgan Chase JPMorgan Chase Bank
transactions. For further details, see Notes 13 and 14 on pages
Short-term Senior Short-term Senior
100–103 and 103–106, respectively, of this Annual Report.
debt long-term debt debt long-term debt
Moody’s P-1 A1 P-1 Aa3 Issuance: Corporate credit spreads narrowed in 2003 across
industries and sectors, reflecting the market perception that
S&P A-1 A+ A-1+ AA-
credit risks were improving sharply throughout the year, as the
Fitch F1 A+ F1 A+
number of downgrades declined, corporate balance sheet cash
positions increased, and corporate profits exceeded expecta-
Upon the announcement of the proposed merger with Bank One, tions. JPMorgan Chase’s credit spreads outperformed relative to
Moody’s and Fitch placed the ratings of the Firm under review for peer spreads following the Enron settlement, reflecting reduced
possible upgrade, while S&P affirmed the Firm’s ratings. headline risk and improved earnings performance. This resulted
Balance sheet: The Firm’s total assets increased to $771 billion at in a positive overall shift in fixed income investor sentiment
December 31, 2003, from $759 billion at December 31, 2002. The toward JPMorgan Chase, as evidenced by increased investor
December 31, 2003, balance sheet includes the effect of adopting participation in debt transactions and extension of debt
FIN 46, which added $10 billion to total assets, including $5.8 billion maturities. The Firm took advantage of its narrowing credit
in commercial loans primarily associated with multi-seller asset- spreads by issuing long-term debt and capital securities
backed commercial paper conduits. Commercial loans declined opportunistically throughout the year.
$14.2 billion, excluding the impact of adopting FIN 46, as a result During 2003, JPMorgan Chase issued approximately $17.2 billion
of weaker loan demand, as well as the Firm’s ongoing efforts to of long-term debt and capital securities. During the year, $8.3 bil-
reduce commercial exposure. Consumer loans increased $11.6 billion of long-term debt and capital securities matured or was
lion, led by strong growth in mortgage and automobile loans, redeemed. In addition, in 2003 the Firm securitized approximately
driven by the favorable rate environment throughout 2003. Credit $13.3 billion of residential mortgage loans, $8.8 billion of credit
card loans declined modestly, affected by increased securitization card loans and $4.5 billion of automobile loans, resulting in pre-
activity and higher levels of payments from cash redeployed from tax gains on securitizations of $168 million, $44 million and
consumer mortgage refinancings. The securities portfolio declined $13 million, respectively. For a further discussion of loan securiti-
due to changes in positioning related to structural interest rate risk zations, see Note 13 on pages 100–103 of this Annual Report.
management. The continued growth in deposits contributed to the
decline in securities sold under repurchase agreements. During 2003, the Firm adopted FIN 46 and, as a result, deconsol-
idated the trusts that issue trust preferred securities. This could
Sources of funds: The diversity of the Firm’s funding sources have significant implications for the Firm’s capital, because it may
enhances financial flexibility and limits dependence on any one change the way the Federal Reserve Board views the Tier 1 status
source, thereby minimizing the cost of funds. JPMorgan Chase has of trust preferred securities. On July 2, 2003, the Federal Reserve
access to funding markets across the globe and across a broad Board issued a supervisory letter instructing banks and bank
investor base. Liquidity is generated using a variety of both short- holding companies to continue to include trust preferred securi-
term and long-term instruments, including deposits, federal funds ties in Tier 1 capital. Based on the terms of this letter and in con-
purchased, repurchase agreements, commercial paper, bank notes, sultation with the Federal Reserve Board, the Firm continues to
medium- and long-term debt, capital securities and stockholders’ include its trust preferred securities in Tier 1 capital. However,
equity. A major source of liquidity for JPMorgan Chase Bank is pro- there can be no assurance that the Federal Reserve Board will
vided by its large core deposit base. For this purpose, core deposits continue to permit trust preferred securities to count as Tier 1
include all U.S. domestic deposits insured by the FDIC, up to the capital in the future. For a further discussion, see Note 18 on
legal limit of $100,000 per depositor. In addition to core deposits, pages 110–111 of this Annual Report.
the Firm benefits from substantial, stable deposit balances
originated by TSS through the normal course of its business. Derivatives are used in liquidity risk management and funding
to achieve the Firm’s desired interest rate risk profile. The Firm
Additional funding flexibility is provided by the Firm’s ability to enters into derivatives contracts to swap fixed-rate debt to
access the repurchase and asset securitization markets. These floating-rate obligations and to swap floating-rate debt to fixed-
alternatives are evaluated on an ongoing basis to achieve the rate obligations. Derivatives contracts are also used to hedge the
appropriate balance of secured and unsecured funding. The ability variability in interest rates that arises from other floating-rate
to securitize loans, and the associated gains on those securitiza- financial instruments and forecasted transactions, such as the
tions, are principally dependent on the credit quality and yields rollover of short-term assets and liabilities.
of the assets securitized and are generally not dependent on the

Off–balance sheet arrangements and The following table summarizes certain revenue information
contractual cash obligations related to VIEs with which the Firm has significant involvement,
and qualifying SPEs:
Special-purpose entities
Year ended December 31, 2003 “Qualifying”
Special-purpose entities (“SPEs”), special-purpose vehicles (in millions) VIEs (a) SPEs Total
(“SPVs”), or variable-interest entities (“VIEs”), are an important
Revenue $ 79 $ 979 $ 1,058
part of the financial markets, providing market liquidity by facili-
tating investors’ access to specific portfolios of assets and risks. (a) Includes consolidated and nonconsolidated asset-backed commercial paper conduits for a
consistent presentation of 2003 results.
SPEs are not operating entities; typically they are established for
a single, discrete purpose, have a limited life and have no The revenue reported in the table above represents primarily
employees. The basic SPE structure involves a company selling servicing fee income. The Firm also has exposure to certain VIE
assets to the SPE. The SPE funds the asset purchase by selling vehicles arising from derivative transactions with VIEs; these
securities to investors. To insulate investors from creditors of transactions are recorded at fair value on the Firm’s Consolidated
other entities, including the seller of the assets, SPEs are often balance sheet with changes in fair value (i.e., mark-to-market
structured to be bankruptcy-remote. SPEs are critical to the gains and losses) recorded in Trading revenue. Such MTM gains
functioning of many investor markets, including, for example, and losses are not included in the revenue amounts reported in
the market for mortgage-backed securities, other asset-backed the table above.
securities and commercial paper. JPMorgan Chase is involved
with SPEs in three broad categories of transactions: loan securi- For a further discussion of SPEs and the Firm’s accounting for
tizations (through “qualifying” SPEs), multi-seller conduits, and SPEs, see Note 1 on pages 86–87, Note 13 on pages 100–103,
client intermediation. Capital is held, as appropriate, against all and Note 14 on pages 103–106 of this Annual Report.
SPE-related transactions and related exposures such as deriva-
tive transactions and lending-related commitments. Contractual cash obligations
In the normal course of business, the Firm enters into various con-
The Firm has no commitments to issue its own stock to support
tractual obligations that may require future cash payments.
any SPE transaction, and its policies require that transactions
Contractual obligations at December 31, 2003, include Long-term
with SPEs be conducted at arm’s length and reflect market pric-
debt, trust preferred capital securities, operating leases, contractual
ing. Consistent with this policy, no JPMorgan Chase employee is
purchases and capital expenditures and certain Other liabilities. For
permitted to invest in SPEs with which the Firm is involved
a further discussion regarding Long-term debt and trust preferred
where such investment would violate the Firm’s Worldwide
capital securities, see Note 18 on pages 109–111 of this Annual
Rules of Conduct. These rules prohibit employees from self-
Report. For a further discussion regarding operating leases, see
dealing and prohibit employees from acting on behalf of the
Note 27 on page 115 of this Annual Report.
Firm in transactions with which they or their family have any
significant financial interest. The accompanying table summarizes JPMorgan Chase’s off–
balance sheet lending-related financial instruments and signifi-
For certain liquidity commitments to SPEs, the Firm could be
cant contractual cash obligations, by remaining maturity, at
required to provide funding if the credit rating of JPMorgan
December 31, 2003. Contractual purchases include commit-
Chase Bank were downgraded below specific levels, primarily
ments for future cash expenditures, primarily for services and
P-1, A-1 and F1 for Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch,
contracts involving certain forward purchases of securities and
respectively. The amount of these liquidity commitments was
commodities. Capital expenditures primarily represent future
$34.0 billion at December 31, 2003. If JPMorgan Chase Bank
cash payments for real estate–related obligations and equip-
were required to provide funding under these commitments, the
ment. Contractual purchases and capital expenditures at
Firm could be replaced as liquidity provider. Additionally, with
December 31, 2003, reflect the minimum contractual obligation
respect to the multi-seller conduits and structured commercial
under legally enforceable contracts with contract terms that are
loan vehicles for which JPMorgan Chase Bank has extended liq-
both fixed and determinable. Excluded from the following table
uidity commitments, the Bank could facilitate the sale or refi-
are a number of obligations to be settled in cash, primarily in
nancing of the assets in the SPE in order to provide liquidity.
under one year. These obligations are reflected on the Firm’s
Of these liquidity commitments to SPEs, $27.7 billion is included Consolidated balance sheet and include Deposits; Federal funds
in the Firm’s total Other unfunded commitments to extend purchased and securities sold under repurchase agreements; Other
credit included in the table on the following page. As a result borrowed funds; purchases of Debt and equity instruments that
of the consolidation of multi-seller conduits in accordance with settle within standard market timeframes (e.g. regular-way);
FIN 46, $6.3 billion of these commitments are excluded from Derivative payables that do not require physical delivery of the
the table, as the underlying assets of the SPE have been included underlying instrument; and certain purchases of instruments that
on the Firm’s Consolidated balance sheet. resulted in settlement failures.

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.

Credit risk management
Credit risk is the risk of loss from obligor or counterparty assesses and manages all credit exposures, whether they arise
default. The Firm is exposed to credit risk through its lending from transactions recorded on- or off–balance sheet.
(e.g., loans and lending-related commitments), trading and capi-
tal markets activities. Credit risk management practices are Credit risk organization
designed to preserve the independence and integrity of the risk-
In early 2003, the Credit Risk Policy and Global Credit
assessment process. Processes in place are intended to ensure
Management functions were combined to form Global Credit
that credit risks are adequately assessed, properly approved,
Risk Management consisting of the five primary functions
continually monitored and actively managed. Risk is managed at
listed in the organizational chart below.
both the individual transaction and portfolio levels. The Firm
Credit risk organization
Chief Risk Officer
Oversees risk management
Global Credit
Risk Management
Chief Credit Risk Officer
Commercial Consumer
Credit Risk Credit Policy and JPMorgan

Special Credits CFS Consumer
Management Portfolio Group Strategy Group Partners
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 • Independently audits, and restructurings 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 • Addresses country risk, limits, allowance appropri-
and secondary market
• 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 folio declined by 9% in 2003, reflecting a combination of con-
tinued weak loan demand, the Firm’s ongoing goal of reducing
Commercial commercial credit concentrations and refinancings into more liq-
uid capital markets. The Firm’s SVA discipline discourages the
The Firm’s business strategy for its large corporate commercial
retention of loan assets that do not generate a positive return
portfolio remains primarily one of origination for distribution.
above the cost of risk-adjusted capital. SVA remains a critical
The majority of the Firm’s wholesale loan originations in IB con-
discipline in making loans and commitments, particularly when
tinue to be distributed into the marketplace, with residual holds
combined with other credit and capital management disciplines.
by the Firm averaging less than 10%. The commercial loan port-

To measure commercial credit risk, the Firm estimates the likelihood consumer losses. Likewise, underwriting principles and philoso-
of obligor or counterparty default; the amount of exposure should phies are common among lenders focusing on borrowers of
the obligor or the counterparty default; and the loss severity given a similar credit quality. For these reasons, Consumer Credit Risk
default event. Based on these factors and related market-based Management focuses on trends and concentrations at the portfo-
inputs, the Firm estimates both expected and unexpected losses for lio level, where problems can be remedied through changes in
each segment of the portfolio. Expected losses are statistically-based underwriting policies and adherence to portfolio guidelines.
estimates of credit losses over time, anticipated as a result of obligor Consumer Credit Risk Management also monitors key risk attrib-
or counterparty default. They are used to set risk-adjusted credit loss utes, including borrower credit quality, loan performance (as meas-
provisions. However, expected credit losses are not the sole indica- ured by delinquency) and losses (expected versus actual). The
tors of risk. If losses were entirely predictable, the expected loss rate monthly and quarterly analysis of trends around these attributes is
could be factored into pricing and covered as a normal and recurring monitored against business expectations and industry benchmarks.
cost of doing business. Unexpected losses represent the potential
volatility of actual losses relative to the expected level of losses and Capital allocation for credit risk
are the basis for the Firm’s credit risk capital-allocation process. Unexpected credit losses drive the allocation of credit risk capital
by portfolio segment.
In 2003, the Firm significantly modified its approach to commer-
cial credit risk management to further enhance risk management In the commercial portfolio, capital allocations are differentiated
discipline, improve returns and liquidity and use capital more effi- by risk rating, loss severity, maturity, correlations and assumed
ciently. Three primary initiatives were launched during the year: exposure at default. In 2003, the Firm revised its methodology for
improved single-name and industry concentration management, the assessment of credit risk capital allocated to the commercial
through a revised threshold and limit structure; a revised capital credit portfolio, more closely aligning capital with current market
methodology; and increased portfolio management activity utiliz- conditions. Specifically, the new approach employs estimates of
ing credit derivatives and loan sales. The Firm manages capital default likelihood that are derived from current market parame-
and exposure concentrations by obligor, risk rating, industry and ters and is intended to capture the impact of both defaults and
geography. The Firm has reduced by one-half the number of declines in market value due to credit deterioration. This approach
clients whose credit exposure exceeded the narrowest definition is intended to reflect more accurately current risk conditions, as
of concentration limits during 2003, through focused client plan- well as to enhance the management of commercial credit risk by
ning and portfolio management activities. encouraging the utilization of the growing market in credit deriva-
tives and secondary market loan sales. See the Capital manage-
A comprehensive review of the Firm’s wholesale credit risk
ment section on pages 46–47 of this Annual Report.
management infrastructure was completed in 2003. As a result,
the Firm has commenced a multi-year initiative to reengineer Within the consumer businesses, capital allocations are differen-
specific components of the credit risk infrastructure, including tiated by product and product segment. For the consumer port-
creation of a simpler infrastructure with more standardized folio, consumer products are placed into categories with
hardware and software platforms. The goal of the initiative is homogenous credit characteristics, from which default rates and
to enhance the Firm’s ability to provide immediate and accurate charge-offs can be estimated. Credit risk capital is allocated
risk and exposure information; actively manage credit risk in the based on the unexpected loss inherent in those categories.
residual portfolio; support client relationships; manage more
quickly the allocation of economic capital; and support compli- Commercial and consumer credit portfolio
ance with Basel II initiatives. JPMorgan Chase’s total credit exposure (which includes $34.9
billion of securitized credit cards) was $730.9 billion at
Consumer
December 31, 2003, a 2% increase from year-end 2002. The
Consumer credit risks are monitored at the aggregate CFS level increase reflected a change in the portfolio’s composition: a
and within each line of business (mortgages, credit cards, auto- $41.5 billion increase in consumer exposure, partially offset by
mobile finance, small business and consumer banking). a $30.2 billion decrease in commercial exposure.
Consumer credit risk management uses sophisticated portfolio
Managed consumer loans increased by $15.7 billion, primarily
modeling, credit scoring and decision-support tools to project
resulting from higher levels of residential mortgage and automo-
credit risks and establish underwriting standards. Risk parameters
bile originations, while lending-related commitments increased
are established in the early stages of product development, and
by $25.8 billion, primarily in the home finance and credit card
the cost of credit risk is an integral part of product pricing and
businesses.
evaluating profit dynamics. Losses generated by consumer loans
are more predictable than for commercial loans, but are subject to Commercial exposure decreased by 7% to $382.7 billion as of
cyclical and seasonal factors. The frequency of loss is higher on year-end 2003, the result of an $8.5 billion decrease in loans and
consumer loans than on corporate loans but the severity of losses is a $22.4 billion decrease in lending-related commitments. The
typically lower and more manageable, depending on whether loans decrease in loans outstanding reflected weaker demand, as well
are secured or not. In addition, common measures of credit quality as the Firm’s ongoing credit management activities, including
derived from historical loss experience can be used to predict $5.2 billion in loan and commitment sales. This was partially offset

by a $5.8 billion increase related to VIEs consolidated in accor- For commercial lending-related commitments, the Firm measures
dance with FIN 46. The decrease in lending-related commitments its Economic credit exposure using a “loan equivalent” amount
was due to an overall contraction in lending demand and for each commitment, rather than the contractual amount of the
reflected a $6.3 billion decline due to the adoption of FIN 46. lending-related commitment. The contractual amount represents
For further discussion of FIN 46, see Note 14 on pages 103–106 the maximum possible credit risk should the counterparty draw
of this Annual Report. down the commitment and subsequently default. However, most
of these commitments expire without a default occurring or with-
The Firm also views its credit exposure on an “Economic” basis,
out being drawn. As a result, the total contractual amount of
which is the basis upon which it allocates credit capital to the
these instruments is not, in the Firm’s view, representative of the
lines of business. The principal difference between the Firm’s
Firm’s actual future credit exposure or funding requirements. In
credit exposure on a reported basis and Economic credit expo-
determining the Firm’s Economic credit exposure to commercial
sure relates to the way the Firm views its credit exposure to
lending-related commitments, the Firm has established a “loan-
derivative receivables and lending-related commitments.
equivalent” amount for each commitment. The loan-equivalent
For derivative receivables, the Firm measures its Economic credit amount represents the portion of the unused commitment or
exposure using the Average exposure (“AVG”) metric. This is a other contingent exposure that is likely, based on average portfolio
measure of the expected MTM value of the Firm’s derivative historical experience, to become outstanding in the event of a
receivables at future time periods, including the benefit of col- default by the obligor. It is this amount that, in management’s
lateral. The three-year average of the AVG metric is the Firm’s view, represents the Firm’s Economic credit exposure to the
Economic measure of derivative risk since three years is the obligor. The aggregate amount of its Economic credit exposure
average remaining life of the derivatives portfolio; it was associated with commercial lending-related commitments was
$34 billion as of December 31, 2003. For more information, $106.9 billion in 2003, compared with $115.5 billion in 2002.
see the Derivative contracts section of this Annual Report.
The following table reconciles commercial lending–related
The following table reconciles Derivative receivables on a MTM commitments on a GAAP basis with the Firm’s Economic credit
basis with the Firm’s Economic credit exposure basis, a non-GAAP exposure basis, a non-GAAP financial measure.
financial measure.
Reconciliation of Commercial Lending-Related
Reconciliation of Derivative Receivables to Economic Commitments to Economic Credit Exposure
Credit Exposure
As of December 31, (in billions) 2003 2002
As of December 31, (in billions) 2003 2002
Commercial lending-related commitments:
Derivative receivables: Reported amount $ 216 $ 238
Derivative receivables MTM $ 84 $ 83 Loan equivalent (“LEQ”) adjustment (109) (123)
Collateral held against derivatives (36) (30) Economic credit exposure $ 107 $ 115
Derivative receivables – net current exposure 48 53
Reduction in exposure to 3-year average exposure (14) (19)
Economic credit exposure $ 34 $ 34

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

Approximate period-end
Credit exposure Economic credit exposure allocated credit capital
As of December 31,
(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 The Firm’s allocated credit capital (including the benefit from
$572.4 billion, compared with $548.0 billion as of year-end credit derivative hedges) decreased significantly during 2003, to
2002. Economic credit exposure for 2003 was $572.4 billion $10.3 billion at December 31, 2003, from $15.4 billion at year-
compared with 2003 credit exposure of $730.9 billion. end 2002. The $5.1 billion decrease was related to lower expo-
sure in the commercial portfolio, hedging and loan sale activities,
and significantly improved credit quality in the loan portfolio.

Commercial credit portfolio in loans, as commercial criticized exposure declined by 47%,
while the total commercial loan balance declined by 9%.
The following table summarizes the maturity and ratings profiles
of the commercial portfolio as of December 31, 2003 and 2002. Under the Firm’s Economic view of credit exposure, the portion
The ratings scale is based on the Firm’s internal risk ratings, and of the portfolio that was deemed investment-grade improved to
is presented on an S&P–equivalent basis. 80% as of December 31, 2003, from 74% at year-end 2002. In
addition to the improved credit quality of loans and lending-
At December 31, 2003, 83% of the total commercial credit
related commitments, the investment-grade component of
exposure of $383 billion was considered investment-grade, an
Derivative receivables improved to 91% at year-end 2003 from
improvement from 80% at year-end 2002. There was improve-
85% at the end of 2002.
ment across all components of credit exposure, most significantly
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 of the new industry structure resulted in shifts in credit exposure,
with increases in some industries due to consolidation and
During 2003, the Firm undertook a thorough analysis of industry
decreases in others as a result of realignments. In managing
risk correlations. As a result, the Firm developed a new industry
industry risk, the Firm recognizes customers that have multiple
structure, intended to provide stronger linkages between expo-
industry affiliations in each industry category. However, the
sures with common risk attributes. The Firm expects these
following table ranks exposures only by a customer’s primary
changes to enhance its ability to manage industry risks consis-
industry affiliation to prevent double counting.
tently across regions and lines of business. The implementation

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:
Ratings profile of credit exposure Collateral

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)
Ratings profile of credit exposure Collateral

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 • Commercial banks: The industry represents the largest seg-
ment of the Firm’s commercial credit exposure, and 96% of
Presented below is a discussion of several industries to which
the credit exposure is rated investment-grade. Collateral held
the Firm has significant exposure and which it continues to
against $33.3 billion in derivative receivables is valued at
monitor because of actual or potential credit concerns.
$24.7 billion.

• Utilities: The Firm significantly reduced its credit exposure to Commercial criticized exposure trends (a)
this segment over the last twelve months, from $17.7 billion (in billions)
to $15.3 billion, a 14% decline. This reduction was achieved Chemicals/plastics Technology Media All other
by significant refinancing activity in nonbank capital markets,
Metals /mining Telecom services Utilities
restructurings in the industry and a decline in client demand
for lending activity. Criticized credit exposures, primarily related $16.6
to U.S. customers, were reduced by 65%, to $998 million. $1.2
Utilities became a top-10 industry as a result of the new $15 $14.6
$1.2
$0.9
industry structure, which consolidated several related sectors. $1.4 $1.0 $12.8
$1.4 $0.8 $11.3
• Media: Total credit exposure declined by 20% to $14.1 billion. $2.6 $0.9
$0.7
$1.2 $0.8
The quality of the portfolio was enhanced by a reduction in criti- $10 $2.5 $8.9
$0.9
cized exposures, primarily in the European cable sector, which $2.9 $2.6 $0.6
$2.0 $0.6
$2.5
increased the proportion of investment-grade exposures from $0.6
$1.3 $1.7
58% to 65% of the portfolio. Overall, criticized exposures were $1.2
$5 $1.0
reduced by 36%, to $1.7 billion. Media became a top-10 industry
$7.3 $6.8 $6.0
as a result of the new industry structure, which consolidated $5.2 $4.4
several related sectors.
$0
• Telecom services: In 2003, the telecommunications industry
12/31/02 3/31/03 6/30/03 9/30/03 12/31/03
worldwide improved its financial picture significantly after
severe capital and liquidity constraints in 2002. Overall, credit (a) Industries shown represent the top five by criticized exposure at the
exposures declined by 30% to $10.9 billion during the year; period indicated.
75% of the credit exposure is considered investment-grade
compared with 59% in 2002. Criticized exposures were The top five industries shown above total 50% of the total com-
reduced by 59% during the year, the result of capital markets mercial criticized exposure at December 31, 2003. No industry
refinancings, other restructurings and acquisitions of weaker below the top five is larger than 5% of the total.
market participants by stronger companies.
• Automotive: In 2003, automotive companies accessed non-
bank capital markets, reducing the Firm’s credit exposure by Criticized exposure - industry concentrations
$924 million. While total credit exposure to this industry is December 31, 2003
significant, more than half of the exposure is undrawn. At Machinery &
December 31, 2003, 76% of this portfolio was rated invest- Consumer products 5% equipment mfg. 5%
ment-grade, an increase from 2002. Airlines 4%
• All other: All other at December 31, 2003 included Emerging markets 3%
Retail 3%
$180 billion of credit exposure to 21 industry segments.
Metal/mining 3%
Exposures related to special-purpose entities and high net Real estate 3%
worth individuals totaled 38% of this category. Special-
purpose entities provide secured financing (generally backed Top 5 50% Under 3% 24%
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 Enron-related exposure
total exposure. The Firm’s exposure to Enron and Enron-related entities
was reduced by 11% during the year, from $688 million at
Commercial criticized exposure December 31, 2002, to $609 million at December 31, 2003. The
Exposures deemed criticized generally represent a ratings profile reduction was primarily due to the maturation of $50 million of
similar to a rating of CCC+/Caa1 and lower, as defined by debtor-in-possession financing and repayments on secured expo-
Standard & Poor’s/Moody’s. As of year-end 2003, the total sures. At December 31, 2003, secured exposure of $270 million
$8.9 billion in criticized exposure represented 2% of total com- is performing and is reported on an amortized cost basis.
mercial 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.

Country exposure
The Firm has a comprehensive process for measuring and manag- addition, the benefit of collateral, credit derivative hedges and
ing its country exposures and risk. Exposures to a country include other short credit or equity trading positions are reflected. Total
all credit-related lending, trading and investment activities, exposure includes exposure to both government and private-
whether cross-border or locally funded. In addition to monitoring sector entities in a country.
country exposures, the Firm uses stress tests to measure and man-
The slight decrease in exposure to Brazil over the prior year-end
age the risk of extreme loss associated with sovereign crises.
was due to reductions in loans. The decline in Mexican exposure
The table below presents the Firm’s exposure to selected coun- when compared with the prior year was primarily due to loan
tries. The selection of countries is based on the materiality of maturities and reductions in counterparty exposure on deriva-
the Firm’s exposure and its view of actual or potentially adverse tives. The reduction in South Korea was due to a combination
credit conditions. Exposure amounts are adjusted for credit of loan maturities and trading activities. Hong Kong’s exposure
enhancements (e.g., guarantees and letters of credit) provided declined due to lower counterparty exposure on derivatives. The
by third parties located outside the country if the enhancements increase in Russian exposure was due to cross-border and local
fully cover the country risk, as well as the commercial risk. In trading positions and short-term lending.
Selected country exposure

At December 31, 2003 At December 31,
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 exposures when entering into derivative transactions as those

used for traditional lending.
In the normal course of business, the Firm utilizes derivative
instruments to meet the needs of customers, to generate rev- The following table summarizes the aggregate notional amounts
enues through trading activities, to manage exposure to fluctu- and the reported derivative receivables (i.e., the MTM or fair
ations in interest rates, currencies and other markets and to value of derivative contracts after taking into account the effects
manage its own credit risk. The Firm uses the same credit risk of legally enforceable master netting agreements) at each of the
management procedures to assess and approve potential credit 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.

The $34 trillion of notional principal of the Firm’s derivative con- Finally, as described on page 53 of this Annual Report, Average
tracts outstanding at December 31, 2003, significantly exceeds exposure is a measure of the expected MTM value of the Firm’s
the possible credit losses that could arise from such transactions. derivative receivables at future time periods. The three-year
For most derivative transactions, the notional principal amount average of the AVG is the basis of the Firm’s Economic credit
does not change hands; it is simply used as a reference to calcu- exposure, while AVG exposure over the total life of the deriva-
late payments. In terms of current credit risk exposure, the tive contract is used as the primary metric for pricing purposes
appropriate measure of risk is the MTM value of the contract. and is used to calculate credit capital and the Credit Valuation
The MTM exposure represents the cost to replace the contracts Adjustment (“CVA”).
at current market rates should the counterparty default. When
The chart below shows the exposure profiles to derivatives over
JPMorgan Chase has more than one transaction outstanding
the next 10 years as calculated by the MDP, DRE and AVG met-
with a counterparty, and a legally enforceable master netting
rics. All three measures generally show declining exposure after
agreement exists with the counterparty, the MTM exposure, less
the first year, if no new trades were added to the portfolio.
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 deriv- Exposure profile of derivatives measures
December 31, 2003
ative receivables (after taking into account the effects of legally
(in billions)
enforceable master netting agreements) was $84 billion. Further,
$60
after taking into account $36 billion of collateral held by the
Firm, the net current MTM credit exposure was $48 billion. MDP DRE AVG
$50
While useful as a current view of credit exposure, the net $48
MTM value of the derivative receivables does not capture the $40
potential future variability of that credit exposure. To capture

the potential future variability of credit exposure, the Firm $30
calculates, on a client-by-client basis, three measures of

$20
potential derivatives-related credit loss: Peak, Derivative
Risk Equivalent (“DRE”) and Average exposure (“AVG”).
$10
This last measure is used as the basis for the Firm’s Economic
credit exposure as defined on page 53 of this Annual Report.
$ 0
These measures all incorporate netting and collateral benefits 1 year 2 years 5 years 10 years
where applicable.
Peak exposure to a counterparty is an extreme measure of The MTM value of the Firm’s derivative receivables incorporates
exposure calculated at a 97.5% confidence level. However, the an adjustment to reflect the credit quality of counterparties. This
total potential future credit risk embedded in the Firm's deriva- is called CVA and was $635 million as of December 31, 2003,
tives portfolio is not the simple sum of all Peak client credit compared with $1.3 billion at December 31, 2002. The CVA is
risks. This is because, at the portfolio level, credit risk is reduced based on the Firm’s AVG to a counterparty, and on the counter-
by the fact that when offsetting transactions are done with sep- party’s credit spread in the credit derivatives market. The primary
arate counterparties, only one of the two trades can generate a components of changes in CVA are credit spreads, new deal
credit loss even if both counterparties were to default simulta- activity or unwinds, and changes in the underlying market envi-
neously. The Firm refers to this effect as market diversification, ronment. The CVA decrease in 2003 was primarily due to the dra-
and the Market-Diversified Peak (“MDP”) measure is a port- matic reduction in credit spreads during the year. For a discussion
folio aggregation of counterparty Peak measures, representing of the impact of CVA on Trading revenue, see portfolio manage-
the maximum losses at the 97.5% confidence level that would ment activity on pages 60–61 of this Annual Report.
occur if all counterparties defaulted under any one given market
The Firm believes that active risk management is essential to
scenario and timeframe.
controlling the dynamic credit risk in the derivatives portfolio.
Derivative Risk Equivalent exposure is a measure that expresses The Firm hedges its exposure to changes in CVA by entering into
the riskiness of derivative exposure on a basis intended to be credit derivative transactions, as well as interest rate, foreign
equivalent to the riskiness of loan exposures. This is done by exchange, equity and commodity derivatives transactions.
equating the unexpected loss in a derivative counterparty expo-
sure (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.

The table below summarizes the ratings profile, as of December 31, Use of credit derivatives
2003, of the Firm’s balance sheet derivative receivables MTM, net
The following table presents the notional amounts of credit deriva-
of cash and other highly liquid collateral:
tives protection bought and sold at December 31, 2003 and 2002:
Ratings profile of derivative receivables MTM
Rating equivalent Exposure net % of exposure
Credit derivative positions
(in millions) of collateral (a) net of collateral Portfolio management Dealer/Client
Notional amount Notional amount
AAA to AA- $ 24,697 52%
A+ to A- 7,677 16 December 31, Protection Protection Protection Protection
BBB+ to BBB- 7,564 16 (in millions) bought (a) sold bought sold Total
BB+ to B- 6,777 14
2003 $ 37,349 $ 67 $264,389 $275,888 $577,693
CCC+ and below 822 2
2002 34,262 495 158,794 172,494 366,045
Total $ 47,537 100%
(a) Includes $2.2 billion and $10.1 billion at 2003 and 2002, respectively, of portfolio credit
(a) Total derivative receivables exposure and collateral held by the Firm against this exposure were derivatives.
$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 JPMorgan Chase has limited counterparty exposure as a result
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 of credit derivatives transactions. Of the $84 billion of total
credit and surety receivables. derivative receivables at December 31, 2003, approximately
The Firm actively pursues the use of collateral agreements to $3 billion, or 4%, was associated with credit derivatives, before
mitigate counterparty credit risk in derivatives. The percentage of the benefit of collateral. The use of credit derivatives to manage
the Firm’s derivatives transactions subject to collateral agreements exposures does not reduce the reported level of assets on the bal-
increased to 78% on December 31, 2003, from 67% on ance sheet or the level of reported off–balance sheet commitments.
December 31, 2002. The increase of collateralized transactions
was driven largely by new collateral agreements. The Firm held Portfolio management activity
$36 billion of collateral as of December 31, 2003, compared with In managing its commercial credit exposure, the Firm purchases
$30 billion as of December 31, 2002. The Firm posted $27 billion single-name and portfolio credit derivatives to hedge its exposures.
of collateral at year-end 2003, compared with $19 billion at the As of December 31, 2003, the notional outstanding amount of
end of 2002. protection purchased via single-name and portfolio credit derivatives
was $35 billion and $2 billion, respectively. The Firm also diversifies
Certain derivative and collateral agreements include provisions
its exposures by providing (i.e., selling) small amounts of credit
that require both the Firm and the counterparty, upon specified
protection, which increases exposure to industries or clients where
downgrades in their respective credit ratings, to post collateral
the Firm has little or no client-related exposure. This activity is not
for the benefit of the other party. The impact on required collat-
material to the Firm’s overall credit exposure; credit protection sold
eral of a single-notch ratings downgrade to JPMorgan Chase
totaled $67 million in notional exposure at December 31, 2003.
Bank, from its current rating of AA- to A+, would have been
an additional $1.3 billion of collateral as of December 31, 2003. Use of single-name and portfolio credit derivatives
The impact of a six-notch ratings downgrade to JPMorgan Chase
Bank (from AA- to BBB-) would have been $3.7 billion of addi- Notional amount of protection bought
tional collateral from levels as of December 31, 2003. The amount December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002
of additional collateral required upon downgrade moves in tan- Credit derivative hedges of:
dem with the mark-to-market value of the derivatives portfolio Loans and lending-related commitments $ 22,471 $ 25,222
and ranged (with respect to a six-notch downgrade) from Derivative receivables 14,878 9,040
$3.4 billion to $4.2 billion throughout 2003, as the level of U.S. Total $ 37,349 $ 34,262
interest rates changed. Certain derivatives contracts also provide
for termination of the contract, generally upon JPMorgan Chase The credit derivatives used by JPMorgan Chase for its portfolio
Bank being downgraded, at the then-existing MTM value of the management activities do not qualify for hedge accounting under
derivative receivables. 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

losses. This asymmetry in accounting treatment between loans Consumer portfolio
and lending-related commitments and the credit derivatives uti- As of December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002
lized in the portfolio management activities causes earnings
volatility that is not representative of the true changes in value U.S. consumer:
1–4 family residential
of the Firm’s overall credit exposure. The MTM treatment of
mortgages - first liens $ 54,460 $ 49,357
both the Firm’s credit derivative hedges (“short” credit positions) Home equity 19,252 14,643
and the CVA, which reflects the credit quality of derivatives
1–4 family residential mortgages 73,712 64,000
counterparty exposure (“long” credit positions), provides some
natural offset. Additionally, the Firm actively manages its com- Credit card – reported (a) 16,793 19,677
Credit card securitizations (a)(b) 34,856 30,722
mercial credit exposure through loan sales. During 2003, the
Firm sold $5.2 billion of loans and commitments, of which Credit card – managed 51,649 50,399
$1.3 billion was criticized. Automobile financings 38,695 33,615
Other consumer (c) 7,221 7,524
The 2003 portfolio management activity resulted in $191 million
Total managed consumer loans $ 171,277 $ 155,538
of losses included in Trading revenue. These losses included
$746 million related to credit derivatives that were used to hedge Lending-related commitments:
1–4 family residential mortgages $ 28,846 $ 20,016
the Firm’s credit exposure, of which approximately $504 million
Credit cards 141,143 123,461
was associated with credit derivatives used to hedge accrual lend-
Automobile financings 2,603 1,795
ing activities and the remainder primarily hedged the credit risk Other consumer 4,331 5,866
of MTM derivative receivables. The losses were generally driven
Total lending-related commitments $ 176,923 $ 151,138
by an overall global tightening of credit spreads. The $746 million
Total consumer credit exposure $ 348,200 $ 306,676
loss was largely offset by $555 million of trading revenue gains
primarily related to the decrease in the MTM value of the CVA (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
due to credit spread tightening. During 2003, the quarterly port- Staff Position, Accounting for Accrued Interest Receivable Related to Securitized and Sold
folio management Trading revenue results ranged from a net loss Receivables under SFAS 140. Prior to March 31, 2003, this balance was classified in credit card
loans.
of $12 million in the third quarter to a net loss of $119 million in (b) Represents the portion of JPMorgan Chase’s credit card receivables that have been securitized.
the second quarter. (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.
Dealer/client activity JPMorgan Chase’s consumer portfolio consists primarily of

JPMorgan Chase’s dealer activity in credit derivatives is client- 1–4 family residential mortgages, credit cards and automobile
driven. The business acts as a market-maker in single-name financings. The consumer portfolio is predominantly U.S.-based.
credit derivatives and also structures more complex transactions The following pie graph provides a summary of the consumer
for clients’ investment or risk management purposes. The credit portfolio by loan type at year-end 2003 and each loan type’s net
derivatives trading function operates within the same framework charge-off rate.
as other market-making desks. Risk limits are established and
closely monitored. Consumer managed loan portfolio
As of December 31, 2003, the total notional amounts of protec-

Other consumer 4% 1-4 family residential
tion purchased and sold by the dealer business were $264 billion Net charge-off rate: mortgage 43%
and $276 billion, respectively. The mismatch between these 2003 - 2.45% Net charge-off rate:
notional amounts is attributable to the Firm selling protection on 2002 - 2.41% 2003 - 0.04%
large, diversified, predominantly investment-grade portfolios 2002 - 0.10%
Automobile 23%
(including the most senior tranches) and then hedging these
Net charge-off rate: Credit card managed 30%
positions by buying protection on the more subordinated tranches Net charge-off rate:
2003 - 0.45%
of the same portfolios. In addition, the Firm may use securities 2002 - 0.57% 2003 - 5.87%
to hedge certain derivative positions. Consequently, while there 2002 - 5.87%
is a mismatch in notional amounts of credit derivatives, the Firm
believes the risk positions are largely matched. 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
Consumer credit portfolio
these loans is the probability the consumer will default and that
The Firm’s managed consumer loan portfolio totaled $171.3 bil-
the value of the home will be insufficient to cover the mortgage
lion at December 31, 2003, an increase of 10% from 2002.
plus carrying costs. Mortgage loans for 1–4 family residences at
Consumer lending–related commitments increased by 17% to
December 31, 2003, increased by 10% compared with last year
$176.9 billion at December 31, 2003. The following table pres-
to $54.5 billion. Home equity loans and home equity lines of
ents a summary of consumer credit exposure on a managed basis:
credit totaled $19.3 billion at December 31, 2003, an increase

of $4.6 billion, or 31%, from 2002. These loans and lines are The Firm analyzes its credit card portfolio on a managed basis,
secured by first and second mortgages. The risks are similar to which includes credit card receivables on the Consolidated bal-
those of first mortgages; however, loss severity can increase ance sheet and those that have been securitized. Credit card cus-
when the Firm is in a second-lien position. As of December 31, tomers are initially approved for a specific revolving credit line.
2003, 88% of home equity loans and lines of credit were For open accounts (those in good standing and able to transact),
secured by second liens. Borrowers with home equity lines of the difference between the approved line and the balance out-
credit are approved for a line of credit for up to 10 years. The standing in the customer’s account is referred to as “open-to-
Firm has a future funding liability in situations where the borrower buy.” The Firm is exposed to changes in the customer’s credit
does not make use of the line of credit immediately but has standing and therefore must calculate the aggregate size of this
the right to draw down the commitment at any time. As of unused exposure and manage the potential credit risk. The size
December 31, 2003, outstandings under home equity lines were of the credit line and resulting open-to-buy balance is adjusted
$16.6 billion and unused commitments were $23.4 billion by the Firm based on the borrower’s payment and general credit
(included in the $28.8 billion of 1–4 family residential mortgage performance. Managed credit card receivables increased by
lending-related commitments). The business actively manages $1.3 billion, or 2%, during 2003. The managed net charge-off
the unused portion of these commitments and freezes a commit- rate of 5.87% was unchanged from 2002.
ment when the borrower becomes delinquent. These accounts
Automobile financings grew by 15% to approximately $38.7 bil-
are then subject to proactive default management, with the
lion, while the net charge-off rate improved from 0.57% in
objective of minimizing potential losses.
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.
U.S. managed consumer loans by region (a)
2003 2002
Southwest 3% New York 16% Southwest 4% New York 16%

West 7% California 19% California 17%
West 7%
Texas 7% Texas 8%
Northeast 18% (b) Northeast 17%(b)
Midwest 14% Midwest 14%
Southeast 16% Southeast 17%
(a) Based on U.S. 1–4 family residential mortgage, managed credit card and automobile financing loans.
(b) Excludes New York.
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.

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:
Nonperforming Nonperforming assets Past due 90 days and Average annual

As of or for the year ended
assets (i) as a % of total over and accruing Net charge-offs net charge-off rate
December 31,
(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:
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
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.

Nonperforming assets decreased by $1.7 billion, or 35%, during Consumer

the year ended December 31, 2003, to $3.1 billion. The decrease
The $21 million decrease in consumer nonperforming loans
was due to activity in the commercial portfolio: total reductions,
reflected improved credit quality in the portfolio. While net
including repayments, loan sales and net charge-offs exceeded
charge-offs increased by $92 million during the year reflecting a
new additions, resulting in net reductions of $1.7 billion. By
10% growth in the portfolio, the average annual net charge-off
contrast, there were commercial net additions during 2002. A
rate declined to 1.96% from 2.30% during 2002.
decline in exposure to the Telecom services, Utilities and Media
industries accounted for more than half of the overall $1.7 bil- In 2004, the amount of gross charge-offs is expected to increase
lion decrease. due to growth in outstandings, but net charge-off rates are
expected to remain stable.
Commercial
Commercial nonperforming loans decreased by 45%, to
$2.0 billion as of December 31, 2003, from $3.7 billion at year- Allowance for credit losses
end 2002. Over the same period, nonperforming commercial
JPMorgan Chase’s Allowance for credit losses is intended to
loans as a percentage of total commercial loans fell to 2.42%
cover probable credit losses, including losses where the asset is
from 4.01%. Commercial loan net charge-offs in 2003 were
not specifically identified or the size of the loss has not been
$816 million, compared with $1.9 billion in 2002, the result of
determined. At least quarterly, the Firm’s Risk Management
improved credit quality in the portfolio and increased recoveries
Committee reviews the Allowance for credit losses relative to the
resulting from restructurings. There were no net charge-offs of
risk profile of the Firm’s credit portfolio and current economic
commercial lending–related commitments in 2003, compared
conditions. The allowance is adjusted based on that review if, in
with $212 million in 2002. The average annual net charge-off
management’s judgment, changes are warranted. The allowance
rate for commercial loans improved significantly, to 0.91% in
includes specific and expected loss components and a residual
2003 from 1.93% in 2002.
component. For further discussion of the components of the
Commercial net charge-offs in 2004 are expected to decline, Allowance for credit losses, see Critical accounting estimates
but at a slower pace than in the second half of 2003. 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.

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 $121 million increase addressed uncertainties in the eco-

The commercial specific loss component of the allowance was nomic environment and concentrations in the commercial loan
$917 million at December 31, 2003, a decrease of 43% from portfolio that existed during the first half of 2003. In the sec-
year-end 2002. The decrease was attributable to the improve- ond half of the year, as commercial credit quality continued to
ment in the credit quality of the commercial loan portfolio, as improve and the commercial allowance declined further, the
well as the reduction in the size of the portfolio. residual component was reduced as well. At December 31,
2003, the residual component represented approximately 20%
The commercial expected loss component of the allowance was of the total allowance for loan losses, within the Firm’s target
$454 million at December 31, 2003, a decrease of 26% from year- range of between 10% and 20%. The Firm anticipates that if
end 2002. The decrease reflected an improvement in the average the current positive trend in economic conditions and credit
quality of the loan portfolio, as well as the improving credit envi- quality continues, the commercial and residual components will
ronment, which affected inputs to the expected loss model. continue to be reduced.
The consumer expected loss component of the allowance was
$2.3 billion at December 31, 2003, a decrease of 4% from year- Lending-related commitments
end 2002. Although the consumer managed loan portfolio To provide for the risk of loss inherent in the credit-extension
increased by 10%, the businesses that drove the increase, Home process, management also computes specific and expected loss
Finance and Auto Finance, have collateralized products with components as well as a residual component for commercial
lower expected loss rates. lending–related commitments. This is computed using a
methodology similar to that used for the commercial loan port-
The residual component of the allowance was $895 million at
folio, modified for expected maturities and probabilities of
December 31, 2003. The residual component, which incorpo-
drawdown. The allowance decreased by 11% to $324 million
rates management's judgment, addresses uncertainties that
as of December 31, 2003, due to improvement in the criticized
are not considered in the formula-based commercial specific
portion of the Firm’s lending-related commitments.
and expected components of the allowance for credit losses.

Market risk management

Market risk represents the potential loss in value Market risk organization
of portfolios and financial instruments caused Market Risk Management (“MRM”) is an independent function
by adverse movements in market variables, such that identifies, measures, monitors and controls market risk. It
as interest and foreign exchange rates, credit seeks to facilitate efficient risk/return decisions and to reduce
spreads, and equity and commodity prices. volatility in operating performance. It strives to make the Firm’s
JPMorgan Chase employs comprehensive and market risk profile transparent to senior management, the Board
rigorous processes intended to measure, monitor of Directors and regulators.
and control market risk. The chart below depicts the MRM organizational structure and
describes the responsibilities of the groups within MRM.
Market risk organization
Chief Risk Officer
Oversees risk management
Market
Risk Management
Chief Market Risk Officer
Business Unit Risk Policy, Reporting

Coverage Groups Methodology and Analysis
• Measures, monitors and controls market risk for • Develops risk measurement and capital allocation • Develops policies that control market risk
business segments, including Asset/Liability methodologies for Market and Credit Risk management process
exposures Management • Aggregates, interprets and distributes market
• Defines and approves limit structures • Reviews and approves new models, re-reviews risk–related information throughout the Firm
• Monitors business adherence to limits models on an annual basis • Reports and monitors business adherence
• Performs stress testing and Net interest income • Collaborates with Credit Risk Management to limits
simulations • Interfaces with regulators and investment
• Approves market risk component of new products community
• Conducts qualitative risk assessments
• Under a joint mandate with Credit Risk
Management, measures, monitors and controls
country and counterparty risk
MRM works in partnership with the business segments, which verifying risk exposures they take. Weekly meetings are held
are expected to maintain strong risk discipline at all levels. For between MRM and the heads of risk-taking businesses, to discuss
example, risk-taking businesses have Middle Office functions that and decide on risk exposures in the context of the market envi-
act independently from trading personnel and are responsible for ronment 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

There are also groups that report to the Chief Financial Officer The Firm calculates VAR using a one-day time horizon and a
with some responsibility for market risk-related activities. For 99% confidence level. This means the Firm would expect to
example, within the Finance area, the valuation control functions incur losses greater than that predicted by VAR estimates only
are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the valuations of once in every 100 trading days, or about 2.5 times a year.
positions that expose the Firm to market risk.
All statistical models involve a degree of uncertainty, depending
Positions that expose the Firm to market risk are classified into two on the assumptions they employ. The Firm prefers historical
categories. Trading risk includes positions held as part of a business simulation, because it involves fewer assumptions about the
whose strategy is to trade, make markets or take positions for the distribution of portfolio losses than parameter-based method-
Firm’s own trading account; gains and losses in these positions are ologies. In addition, the Firm regularly assesses the quality of
reported in Trading revenue. Nontrading risk includes mortgage the market data, since their accuracy is critical to computing
banking positions held for longer-term investment and positions VAR. Nevertheless, because VAR is based on historical market
used to manage the Firm’s asset/liability exposures. In most cases, data, it may not accurately reflect future risk during environ-
unrealized gains and losses in these positions are accounted for ments in which market volatility is changing. In addition, the
at fair value, with the gains and losses reported in Net income or VAR measure on any particular day may not be indicative of
Other comprehensive income. future risk levels, since positions and market conditions may
both change over time.
Tools used to measure risks
While VAR is a valuable tool for evaluating relative risks and
Because no single measure can reflect all aspects of market risk, aggregating risks across businesses, it only measures the poten-
the Firm uses several measures, both statistical and nonstatistical, tial volatility of daily revenues. Profitability and risk levels over
including: longer time periods – a fiscal quarter or a year – may be only
• Statistical risk measures loosely related to the average value of VAR over those periods.
- Value-at-Risk (“VAR”) First, while VAR measures potential fluctuations around average
- Risk identification for large exposures (“RIFLE”) daily revenue, the average itself could reflect significant gains or
losses; for example, from client revenues that accompany risk-
• Nonstatistical risk measures taking activities. Second, large trading revenues may result from
- Economic-value stress tests positions taken over longer periods of time. For example, a busi-
- Net interest income stress tests ness may maintain an exposure to rising or falling interest rates
- Other measures of position size and sensitivity to market over a period of weeks or months. If the market exhibits a long-
moves term trend over that time, the business could experience large
gains or losses, even though revenue volatility on each individual
Value-at-Risk day may have been small.
JPMorgan Chase’s statistical risk measure, VAR, gauges the
potential loss from adverse market moves in an ordinary market VAR Backtesting
environment and provides a consistent cross-business measure To evaluate the soundness of its VAR model, the Firm conducts
of risk profiles and levels of risk diversification. VAR is used to daily backtesting of VAR against actual financial results, based
compare risks across businesses, to monitor limits and to allo- on daily market risk–related revenue. Market risk–related revenue
cate economic capital to the business segments. VAR provides is defined as the daily change in value of the mark-to-market
risk transparency in a normal trading environment. trading portfolios plus any trading-related net interest income,
Each business day, the Firm undertakes a comprehensive VAR brokerage commissions, underwriting fees or other revenue.
calculation that includes both trading and nontrading activities. The Firm’s definition of market risk–related revenue is consistent
JPMorgan Chase’s VAR calculation is highly granular, comprising with the Federal Reserve Board’s implementation of the Basel
more than 1.5 million positions and 240,000 pricing series (e.g., Committee's market risk capital rules. The histogram below
securities prices, interest rates, foreign exchange rates). For a illustrates the Firm’s daily market risk–related revenue for trading
substantial portion of its exposure, the Firm has implemented businesses for 2003. The chart shows that the Firm posted posi-
full-revaluation VAR, which, management believes, generates tive daily market risk–related revenue on 235 out of 260 days
the most accurate results. in 2003, with 170 days exceeding $25 million. Losses were sus-
tained on 25 days; nine of those days were in the third quarter,
To calculate VAR, the Firm uses historical simulation, which primarily driven by poor overall trading results. The largest daily
measures risk across instruments and portfolios in a consistent, trading loss during the year was $100 million.
comparable way. This approach assumes that historical changes
in market value are representative of future changes. The simu-
lation is based on market data for the previous 12 months.

The inset in the histogram examines the 25 days on which the on which the Firm’s losses exceeded VAR; these losses were
Firm posted trading losses and depicts the amount by which VAR attributable to certain positions in the mortgage banking busi-
was greater than the actual loss on each day. There was one day ness, which were then included in the Firm’s trading portfolio,
on which trading losses exceeded VAR by approximately 10%, a but which are now included in the nontrading portfolio with
performance statistically consistent with the Firm’s 99% confi- other mortgage banking positions.
dence level. During the third quarter, there was an additional day
The graph below depicts the number of days on which JPMorgan Chase's market risk-related 12
Daily VAR less trading losses
revenues fell within particular ranges. The inset graph to the right looks at those days on which
10
the Firm experienced trading losses and depicts the amount by which the VAR exceeded the
actual loss on each of those days.
8
Number of trading days

Daily market risk-related revenue for trading businesses 6
50
4
Average daily revenue: $37.0 million
2
40
0
Number of trading days
40 > < 60
60 > < 80
> 80
0 > < 20
<0
20 > < 40
$ in millions
30
20
10
0
< (40)
(40) > < (30)
(30) > < (20)
(20) > < (10)
(10) > < 0
0 > < 10
10 > < 20
20 > < 30
30 > < 40
40 > < 50
50 > < 60
60 > < 70
70 > < 80
80 > < 90
90 > < 100
100 > < 110
> 110
$ in millions
Economic-value stress testing prices specified for each scenario. Additional scenarios focus on
the risks predominant in individual business segments and include
While VAR reflects the risk of loss due to unlikely events in nor-
scenarios that focus on the potential for adverse moves in com-
mal markets, stress testing captures the Firm’s exposure to
plex portfolios.
unlikely but plausible events in abnormal markets. Stress testing
is equally important as VAR in measuring and controlling risk. Scenarios are continually reviewed and updated to reflect changes
Stress testing enhances the understanding of the Firm’s risk pro- in the Firm’s risk profile and economic events. Stress-test results,
file and loss potential and is used for monitoring limits, cross- trends and explanations are provided each month to the Firm’s
business risk measurement and economic capital allocation. senior management and to the lines of business, to help them
better measure and manage risks and to understand event risk–
Economic-value stress tests measure the potential change in the
sensitive positions.
value of the Firm’s portfolios. Applying economic-value stress
tests helps the Firm understand how the economic value of its The Firm’s stress-test methodology assumes that, during an
balance sheet (not the amounts reported under GAAP) would actual stress event, no management action would be taken to
change under certain scenarios. The Firm conducts economic- change the risk profile of portfolios. This assumption captures
value stress tests for both its trading and its nontrading activities, the decreased liquidity that often occurs with abnormal markets
using the same scenarios for both. and results, in the Firm’s view, in a conservative stress-test result.
The Firm stress tests its portfolios at least once a month using multi- It is important to note that VAR results cannot be directly corre-
ple scenarios. Several macroeconomic event-related scenarios are lated to stress-test loss results for three reasons. First, stress-test
evaluated across the Firm, with shocks to roughly 10,000 market losses are calculated at varying dates each month, while VAR is

performed daily and disclosed at the period-end date. Second, (e.g., the prime lending rate), pricing strategies on deposits and
VAR and stress tests are two distinct risk measurements yielding changes in product mix. These stress tests also take into account
very different loss potentials. Thus, although the same trading forecasted balance sheet changes, such as asset sales and securiti-
portfolios are used for both tests, VAR is based on a distribution zations, as well as prepayment and reinvestment behavior.
of one-day historical losses measured over the most recent one
year; by contrast, stress testing subjects the portfolio to more RIFLE
extreme, larger moves over a longer time horizon (e.g., 2–3
In addition to VAR, JPMorgan Chase employs the Risk identifica-
weeks). Third, as VAR and stress tests are distinct risk measure-
tion for large exposures (“RIFLE”) methodology as another sta-
ments, the impact of portfolio diversification can vary greatly.
tistical risk measure. The Firm requires that all market risk–taking
For VAR, markets can change in patterns over a one-year time
businesses self-assess their risks to unusual and specific events.
horizon, moving from highly correlated to less so; in stress test-
Individuals who manage risk positions, particularly complex posi-
ing, the focus is on a single event and the associated correla-
tions, identify potential worst-case losses that could arise from
tions in an extreme market situation. As a result, while VAR over
an unusual or specific event, such as a potential tax change, and
a given time horizon can be lowered by a diversification benefit
estimate the probabilities of such losses. Through the Firm’s
in the portfolio, this benefit would not necessarily manifest itself
RIFLE system, this information is then directed to the appropriate
in stress-test scenarios, which assume large, coherent moves
level of management, thereby permitting the Firm to identify
across all markets.
further earnings vulnerabilities not adequately covered by VAR
and stress testing.
Net interest income stress testing
The VAR and stress-test measures described above illustrate the Nonstatistical risk measures
total economic sensitivity of the Firm’s balance sheet to changes
Nonstatistical risk measures other than stress testing include net
in market variables. The effect of interest rate exposure on
open positions, basis point values, option sensitivities, position
reported Net income is also critical. The Firm conducts simula-
concentrations and position turnover. These measures provide
tions of Net interest income for its nontrading activities under a
additional information on an exposure’s size and the direction in
variety of interest rate scenarios, which are consistent with the
which it is moving. Nonstatistical measures are used for moni-
scenarios used for economic-value stress testing.
toring limits, one-off approvals and tactical controls.
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
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.

Trading Risk The potential stress-test loss as of December 4, 2003, is the result of
the “Equity Market Collapse” stress scenario, which is broadly mod-
Major risks eled on the events of October 1987. Under this scenario, global
Interest rates: Interest rate risk (which includes credit spread risk) equity markets suffer a sharp reversal after a long sustained rally;
involves the potential decline in net income or financial condition equity prices decline globally; volatilities for equities, interest rates
due to adverse changes in market interest rates, which may result and credit products increase dramatically for short maturities and
in changes to NII, securities valuations, and other interest-sensitive less so for longer maturities; sovereign bond yields decline moder-
revenues and expenses. ately; and swap spreads and credit spreads widen moderately.
Foreign exchange, equities and commodities: These risks

involve the potential decline in net income or financial condition Nontrading Risk
due to adverse changes in foreign exchange, equities or commodi- Major risk – Interest rates
ties markets, whether due to proprietary positions taken by the
Firm, or due to a decrease in the level of client activity. The execution of the Firm’s core business strategies, the delivery
of products and services to its customers, and the discretionary
Hedge fund investments: The Firm invests in numerous hedge positions the Firm undertakes to risk-manage structural exposures
funds that have various strategic goals, investment strategies, give rise to interest rate risk in its nontrading activities.
industry concentrations, portfolio sizes and management styles.
Fund investments are passive long-term investments. Individual This exposure can result from a variety of factors, including differ-
hedge funds may have exposure to interest rate, foreign exchange, ences in the timing between the maturity or repricing of assets,
equity and commodity risk within their portfolio risk structures. 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 neces-
Trading VAR
sarily match those of its liabilities. The Firm is also exposed to basis
The largest contributor to trading VAR was interest rate risk. risk, which is the difference in the repricing characteristics of two
Before portfolio diversification, interest rate risk accounted for floating-rate indices, such as the prime rate and 3-month LIBOR. In
roughly 60% of the average Trading Portfolio VAR. The diversifi- addition, some of the Firm’s products have embedded optionality
cation effect, which on average reduced the daily average Trading that may have an impact on pricing and balance levels.
Portfolio VAR by $38 million in 2003, reflects the fact that the
largest losses for different positions and risks do not typically The Firm manages exposure in its structural interest rate activities
occur at the same time. The risk of a portfolio of positions is on a consolidated, corporate-wide basis. Business units transfer
therefore usually less than the sum of the risks of the positions their interest rate risk to Global Treasury through a transfer pricing
themselves. The degree of diversification is determined both by system, which takes into account the elements of interest rate
the extent to which different market variables tend to move exposure that can be hedged in financial markets. These elements
together, and by the extent to which different businesses have include current balance and contractual rates of interest, con-
similar positions. tractual principal payment schedules, expected prepayment
experience, interest rate reset dates and maturities and rate
The increase in year-end VAR was driven by an increase in the indices used for re-pricing. All transfer pricing assumptions are
VAR for equities risk, which was attributable to a significant reviewed on a semiannual basis and must be approved by the
increase in customer-driven business in equity options. In general, Firm’s Capital Committee.
over the course of a year, VAR exposures can vary significantly as
trading positions change and market volatility fluctuates. The Firm’s mortgage banking activities also give rise to complex
interest rate risks. The interest rate exposure from the Firm’s mort-
Economic-value stress testing gage banking activities is a result of option and basis risks. Option
risk arises from prepayment features in mortgages and MSRs, and
The following table represents the worst-case potential economic-
from the probability of newly originated mortgage commitments
value stress-test loss (pre-tax) in the Firm’s trading portfolio as pre-
actually closing. Basis risk results from different relative movements
dicted by stress-test scenarios:
between mortgage rates and other interest rates. These risks
Trading economic-value stress-test loss results – pre-tax are managed through hedging programs specific to the different
mortgage banking activities. Potential changes in the market
As of or for value of MSRs and increased amortization levels of MSRs are
the year ended 2003 2002(a) managed via a risk management program that attempts to offset
December 31, At At
changes in the market value of MSRs with changes in the market
(in millions) Avg. Min. Max. Dec. 4 Avg. Min. Max. Dec. 5
value of derivatives and investment securities. A similar approach
Stress-test is implemented to manage the interest rate and option risks
loss – pre-tax $ (508) $ (255) $(888) $ (436) $ (405) $ (103) $ (715) $ (219) associated with the Firm’s mortgage origination business.
(a) Amounts have been revised to reflect the reclassification of certain mortgage banking
positions from the trading portfolio to the nontrading portfolio.

Nontrading VAR Nontrading NII stress-test loss results – pre-tax
For nontrading activities that involve market risk, VAR measures December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002
the amount of potential change in their economic value; however,
it is not a measure of reported revenues, since those activities are +/- 100bp parallel change $ (160) $ (277)
Other stress-test scenarios (88) (133)
not marked to market through earnings.
The increase in average, maximum and December 31 nontrading Nonstatistical measures

portfolio VAR was primarily attributable to the increase in market The Firm also calculates exposures to directional interest rate
volatility during the 2003 third quarter, and to the rise in interest changes and to changes in the spread between the swap curve
rates in the second half of 2003, which increased the sensitivity of and other basis risks. At year-end, the market value of the Firm’s
mortgage instruments to the basis risk between mortgage rates nontrading positions did not have a significant exposure to
and other interest rates. increases or decreases in interest rates. However, the Firm’s non-
trading positions maintain an exposure to the spread between
Economic-value stress testing mortgage rates and swap rates; at year-end the Firm was
The Firm conducts both economic-value and NII stress tests on its exposed to a widening of this spread.
nontrading activities. Economic-value stress tests measure the poten-
tial change in the value of these portfolios under the same scenarios Capital allocation for market risk
used to evaluate the trading portfolios. The Firm allocates market risk capital guided by the principle
The following table represents the potential worst-case economic- that capital should reflect the extent to which risks are present
value stress-test loss (pre-tax) in the Firm’s nontrading portfolio as in businesses. Daily VAR, monthly stress-test results and other
predicted by stress-test scenarios: factors determine appropriate capital charges for major business
segments. The VAR measure captures a large number of one-day
Nontrading economic-value stress-test loss results – pre-tax price moves, while stress tests capture a smaller number of very
As of or for
large price moves. The Firm allocates market risk capital to each
the year ended 2003 2002 business segment according to a formula that weights that seg-
December 31, At At ment’s VAR and stress-test exposures.
(in millions) Avg. Min. Max. Dec. 4 Avg. Min. Max. Dec. 5
Stress-test Risk monitoring and control

loss – pre-tax $ (637) $ (392) $(1,130) $ (665) $ (967) $ (523) $(1,566) $ (556)
Limits
The potential stress-test loss as of December 4, 2003, is the result Market risk is primarily controlled through a series of limits. The
of the “Credit Crunch” stress scenario, which is broadly based on sizes of the limits reflect the Firm’s risk appetite after extensive
the events of 1997–98. Under that scenario, political instability in analyses of the market environment and business strategy. The
emerging markets leads to a flight to quality; sovereign bond analyses examine factors such as market volatility, product liquidity,
yields decline moderately; the U.S. dollar declines against the business track record, and management experience and depth.
euro and Japanese yen; credit spreads widen sharply; mortgage
The Firm maintains different levels of limits. Corporate-level
spreads widen; and equity prices decline moderately.
limits encompass VAR calculations and stress-test loss advisories.
Similarly, business-segment levels include limits on VAR calcula-
Net interest income stress testing
tions, nonstatistical measurements and P&L loss advisories.
The following table shows the change in the Firm’s NII over the next Businesses are responsible for adhering to established limits,
12 months that would result from uniform increases or decreases of against which exposures are monitored and reported daily. An
100 basis points in all interest rates. It also shows the largest decline exceeded limit is reported immediately to senior management,
in the Firm’s NII under the same stress-test scenarios utilized for the and the affected business unit must take appropriate action to
trading portfolio. At year-end 2003, JPMorgan Chase’s largest poten- comply with the limit. If the business cannot do this within an
tial NII stress-test loss was estimated at $160 million, primarily the acceptable timeframe, senior management is consulted on the
result of increased funding costs. 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.

Qualitative review number of issues: appropriateness of the model, assessing the

extent to which it accurately reflects the characteristics of the
MRM also performs periodic reviews of both businesses and prod-
transaction and captures its significant risks; independence and
ucts with exposure to market risk in order to assess the ability of
reliability of data sources; appropriateness and adequacy of
the businesses to control market risk. The business management’s
numerical algorithms; and sensitivity to input parameters or other
strategy, market conditions, product details and effectiveness of
assumptions which cannot be priced from the market.
risk controls are reviewed. Specific recommendations for improve-
ments are made to management. Reviews are conducted for new or changed models, as well as
previously accepted models. Re-reviews assess whether there
Model review have been any material changes to the accepted models;
Many of the Firm’s financial instruments cannot be valued based whether there have been any changes in the product or market
on quoted market prices but are instead valued using pricing that may impact the model’s validity; and whether there are
models. Such models are used for management of risk positions, theoretical or competitive developments that may require
such as reporting risk against limits, and for valuation. The Firm reassessment of the model’s adequacy. For a summary of valua-
reviews the models it uses to assess model appropriateness and tions based on models, see Critical accounting estimates used
consistency across businesses. The model reviews consider a by the Firm on pages 76–77 of this Annual Report.
Operational risk management

Operational risk is the risk of loss resulting from Governance structure: The governance structure provides the
inadequate or failed processes or systems, framework for the Firm’s operational risk management activities.
human factors, or external events. Primary responsibility for managing operational risk rests with
business managers. These individuals are responsible for estab-
lishing and maintaining appropriate internal control procedures
Overview for their respective businesses.
Operational risk is inherent in each of the Firm’s businesses and
support activities. Operational risk can manifest itself in various The Operational Risk Committee, which meets quarterly, is com-
ways, including errors, business interruptions, inappropriate posed of senior operational risk and finance managers from
behavior of employees and vendors that do not perform in each of the businesses. In addition, each of the businesses must
accordance with outsourcing arrangements. These events can maintain business control committees to oversee their opera-
potentially result in financial losses and other damage to the tional risk management practices.
Firm, including reputational harm. Self-assessment process: In 2003, JPMorgan Chase continued
To monitor and control operational risk, the Firm maintains a to refine its Firm-wide self-assessment process. The goal of the
system of comprehensive policies and a control framework process was for each business to identify the key operational risks
designed to provide a sound and well controlled operational specific to its environment and assess the degree to which it
environment. The goal is to keep operational risk at appropriate maintained appropriate controls. Action plans were developed for
levels, in light of the Firm’s financial strength, the characteristics control issues identified, and businesses are to be held account-
of its businesses, the markets in which it operates, and the com- able for tracking and resolving these issues on a timely basis.
petitive and regulatory environment to which it is subject. Self-assessments were completed by the businesses through the
Notwithstanding these control measures, the Firm incurs opera- use of Horizon, a software application developed by the Firm.
tional losses. The Firm’s approach to operational risk management With the aid of Horizon, all businesses were required to perform
is intended to mitigate such losses. semiannual self-assessments in 2003. Going forward, the Firm
will utilize the self-assessment process as a dynamic risk man-
Operational risk management practices agement tool.
Throughout 2003, JPMorgan Chase continued to execute a multi- Operational risk-event monitoring: The Firm has a process
year plan, begun in 2001, for an integrated approach that empha- for reporting operational risk-event data, permitting analyses of
sizes active management of operational risk throughout the Firm. errors and losses as well as trends. Such analyses, performed
The objective of this effort is to supplement the traditional control- both at a line-of-business level and by risk event type, enable
based approach to operational risk with risk measures, tools and identification of root causes associated with risk events faced by
disciplines that are risk-specific, consistently applied and utilized the businesses. Where available, the internal data can be sup-
Firm-wide. Key themes for this effort are transparency of informa- plemented with external data for comparative analysis with
tion, escalation of key issues and accountability for issue resolution. industry patterns. The data reported will enable the Firm to
Ultimate responsibility for the Firm’s operational risk management back-test against self-assessment results.
practices resides with the Chief Risk Officer. The components are:

Integrated reporting: The Firm is presently designing an oper- for qualification under the Advanced Measurement Approach
ational risk architecture model to integrate the above individual for operational risk.
components into a unified, web-based tool. When fully imple-
Business risk is defined as the risk associated with volatility in the
mented, this model will enable the Firm to enhance its reporting
Firm’s earnings due to factors not captured by other parts of its
and analysis of operational risk data, leading to improved risk
economic-capital framework. Such volatility can arise from inef-
management and financial performance.
fective design or execution of business strategies, volatile eco-
Audit alignment: In addition to conducting independent inter- nomic or financial market activity, changing client expectations
nal audits, the Firm’s internal audit group provided guidance on and demands, and restructuring to adjust for changes in the com-
the design and implementation of the operational risk frame- petitive environment. For business risk, capital is allocated to each
work. This guidance has helped further the Firm-wide imple- business based on historical revenue volatility and measures of
mentation of the framework, which in turn has led to a stronger fixed and variable expenses. Earnings volatility arising from other
overall control environment. The internal audit group utilizes the risk factors, such as credit, market, or operational risk, is excluded
business self-assessment results to help focus its internal audits from the measurement of business risk capital, as those factors
on operational control issues. The group also reviews the effec- are captured under their respective risk capital models.
tiveness and accuracy of the business self-assessment process
during the conduct of its audits. Reputation and Fiduciary risk
A firm’s success depends not only on its prudent management
Operational Risk Categories
of credit, market, operational and business risks, but equally on
For purposes of analysis and aggregation, the Firm breaks oper- the maintenance of its reputation among many constituents –
ational risk events down into five primary categories: clients, investors, regulators, as well as the general public – for
• Clients, products and business practices business practices of the highest quality.
• Fraud, theft and unauthorized activity
Attention to its reputation has always been a key aspect of the
• Execution and processing errors
Firm’s practices, and maintenance of reputation is the responsi-
• Employment practices and workplace safety
bility of everyone at the Firm. JPMorgan Chase bolsters this indi-
• Physical asset and infrastructure damage
vidual responsibility in many ways: the Worldwide Rules of
Conduct, training, policies and oversight functions that approve
Compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404
transactions. These oversight functions include a Conflicts Office,
The Firm intends to use, as much as possible, its existing corpo- which examines transactions with the potential to create con-
rate governance and operational risk management practices to flicts of interest or role for the Firm.
satisfy the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act regarding internal control over financial reporting. The Firm In addition, the Firm maintains a Fiduciary Risk Management
is currently in the process of evaluating the requirements of Committee (“FRMC”) to oversee fiduciary-related risks that may
Section 404 and of implementing additional procedures into its produce significant losses or reputational damage, and that are not
existing practices. The Firm intends to be in full compliance with covered elsewhere by the corporate risk management oversight
the requirements of the Act when they become effective in structure. The primary goal of the fiduciary risk management func-
2004. For a further discussion on the Act, see page 79 of this tion is to ensure that a business, in providing investment or risk
Annual Report. management products or services, performs at the appropriate
standard relative to its relationship with a client, whether it be
Capital allocation for operational and fiduciary or nonfiduciary in nature. A particular focus of the FRMC
is the policies and practices that address a business’s responsibilities
business risk
to a client, including the policies and practices that address client
During 2003, the Firm implemented a new risk-based capital suitability determination, disclosure obligations and performance
allocation methodology which estimates operational and busi- expectations with respect to the investment and risk management
ness risk independently, on a bottoms-up basis, and allocates products or services being provided. In this way, the FRMC provides
capital to each component. Implementation of the new oversight of the Firm’s efforts to measure, monitor and control the
methodology in 2003 resulted in an overall lower amount of risks that may arise in the delivery of such products or services to
capital allocated to the lines of business with respect to opera- clients, as well as those stemming from its fiduciary responsibilities
tional and business risks. undertaken on behalf of employees.
The operational risk capital model is based on actual losses and The Firm has an additional structure to account for potential
potential scenario-based stress losses, with adjustments to the adverse effects on its reputation from transactions with clients,
capital calculation to reflect changes in the quality of the control especially complex derivatives and structured finance transactions.
environment and with a potential offset for the use of risk- This structure, implemented in 2002, reinforces the Firm’s proce-
transfer products. The Firm believes the model is consistent with dures for examining transactions in terms of appropriateness,
the proposed Basel II Accord and expects to propose it eventually ethical issues and reputational risk, and it intensifies the Firm’s

scrutiny of the purpose and effect of its transactions from the risk – particularly a client’s motivation and its intended financial
client’s point of view, with the goal that these transactions are disclosure of the transaction. The committees approve, reject or
not used to mislead investors or others. The structure operates require further clarification on or changes to the transactions.
at three levels: as part of every business’s transaction approval The members of these committees are senior representatives of
process; through review by regional Policy Review Committees; the business and support units in the region. The committees
and through oversight by the Policy Review Office. may escalate transaction review to the Policy Review Office.
Business transaction approval Policy Review Office

Primary responsibility for adherence to the policies and proce- The Policy Review Office is the most senior approval level for
dures designed to address reputation risk lies with the business client transactions involving reputation risk issues. The mandate
units conducting the transactions in question. The Firm’s transac- of the Office is to opine on specific transactions brought by the
tion approval process requires review and sign-off from, among Regional Committees and consider changes in policies or prac-
others, internal legal/compliance, conflicts, tax and accounting tices relating to reputation risk. The head of the office consults
policy groups. Transactions involving an SPE established by the with the Firm’s most senior executives on specific topics and pro-
Firm receive particular scrutiny and must comply with a Special- vides regular updates. Aside from governance and guidance on
Purpose Vehicle Policy, designed to ensure that every such entity specific transactions, the objective of the policy review process is
is properly approved, documented, monitored and controlled. to reinforce a culture, through a “case study” approach, that
ensures that all employees, regardless of seniority, understand
Regional policy review committees the basic principles of reputation risk control and can recognize
and address issues as they arise.
Business units are also required to submit to regional Policy Review
Committees proposed transactions that may heighten reputation
practical and as circumstances dictate. Over time, the Firm may

Private equity risk management change the nature and type of hedges it enters into, as well as
close hedging positions altogether.
Risk management
JPMP employs processes for risk measurement and control of Capital allocation for private equity risk
private equity risk that are similar to those used for other busi-
Internal capital is allocated to JPMP’s public equities portfolio
nesses within the Firm. The processes are coordinated with the
based on stress scenarios which reflect the potential loss inher-
Firm’s overall approach to market and concentration risk. Private
ent in the portfolio in the event of a large equity market
equity risk is initially monitored through the use of industry and
decline. Capital is also allocated for liquidity risk, which results
geographic limits. Additionally, to manage the pace of new
from the contractual sales restrictions to which some holdings
investments, a ceiling on the amount of annual private equity
are subject. For private equities, capital is allocated based on a
investment activity has been established.
long-term equity market stress scenario that is consistent with
JPMP’s public equity holdings create a significant exposure to the investment time horizons associated with these holdings.
general declines in the equity markets. To gauge that risk, VAR For these investments, additional capital is allocated against the
and stress-test exposures are calculated in the same way as risk of an unexpectedly large number of write-offs or write-
they are for the Firm’s trading and nontrading portfolios. JPMP downs. The Firm refined its methodology for measuring private
management undertakes frequent reviews of its public security equity risk during the second quarter of 2003. It now assigns a
holdings as part of a disciplined approach to sales and hedging moderately higher amount of capital for the risk in the private
issues. Hedging programs are limited but are considered when 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 In addition, the policies and procedures are intended to ensure
to understanding the reported results. The Firm’s most complex that the process for changing methodologies occurs in an
accounting estimates require management’s judgment to ascer- appropriate manner. The Firm believes its estimates for deter-
tain the valuation of assets and liabilities. The Firm has estab- mining the valuation of its assets and liabilities are appropriate.
lished detailed policies and control procedures intended to
The following is a brief description of the Firm’s critical accounting
ensure valuation methods, including any judgments made as
estimates involving significant management valuation judgments.
part of such methods, are well controlled, independently
reviewed and applied consistently from period to period.

Allowance for Credit Losses determined appropriate by the Firm. Similarly, there are judg-
ments as to which external data on default probabilities should
JPMorgan Chase’s Allowance for credit losses covers the com-
be used, and when they should be used. Choosing data that are
mercial and consumer loan portfolios as well as the Firm’s port-
not reflective of the Firm’s specific loan portfolio characteristics
folio of commercial lending-related commitments. The
could affect loss estimates.
allowance for loan losses is intended to adjust the value of the
Firm’s loan assets for probable credit losses as of the balance As noted above, the Firm’s allowance for loan losses is sensitive
sheet date in accordance with generally accepted accounting to the risk rating assigned to a loan. Assuming a one-notch
principles. Management also computes an allowance for lending- downgrade in the Firm’s internal risk ratings for all its commercial
related commercial commitments using a methodology similar loans, the allowance for loan losses for the commercial portfolio
to that used for the commercial loan portfolio. For a further would increase by approximately $470 million at December 31,
discussion of the methodologies used in establishing the Firm’s 2003. Furthermore, assuming a 10% increase in the loss severity
Allowance for credit losses, see Note 12 on page 100 of this on all downgraded non-criticized loans, the allowance for com-
Annual Report. mercial loans would increase by approximately $50 million at
December 31, 2003. These sensitivity analyses are hypothetical
Commercial loans and lending-related commitments and should be used with caution. The purpose of these analyses
is to provide an indication of the impact risk ratings and loss
The methodology for calculating both the Allowance for loan
severity have on the estimate of the allowance for loan losses
losses and the Allowance for lending-related commitments
for commercial loans. It is not intended to imply management’s
involves significant judgment. First and foremost, it involves the
expectation of future deterioration in risk ratings or changes in
early identification of credits that are deteriorating. Second, it
loss severity. Given the process the Firm follows in determining
involves management judgment to derive loss factors.
the risk ratings of its loans and assessing loss severity, manage-
The Firm uses a risk rating system to determine the credit quality ment believes the risk ratings and loss severities currently
of its loans. Commercial loans are reviewed for information assigned to commercial loans are appropriate. Furthermore, the
affecting the obligor’s ability to fulfill its obligations. In assessing likelihood of a one-notch downgrade for all commercial loans
the risk rating of a particular loan, among the factors considered within a short timeframe is remote.
include the obligor’s debt capacity and financial flexibility, the
level of the obligor’s earnings, the amount and sources of repay- Consumer loans
ment, the level and nature of contingencies, management
The consumer portfolio is segmented into three main business
strength, and the industry and geography in which the obligor
lines: Chase Home Finance, Chase Cardmember Services and
operates. These factors are based on an evaluation of historical
Chase Auto Finance. For each major portfolio segment within
information and current information as well as subjective assess-
each line of business, there are three primary factors that are
ment and interpretation. Emphasizing one factor over another
considered in determining the expected loss component of the
or considering additional factors that may be relevant in deter-
allowance for loan losses: period-end outstandings, expected loss
mining the risk rating of a particular loan, but which are not
factor and average life. The various components of these factors,
currently an explicit part of the Firm’s methodology, could
such as collateral, prepayment rates, credit score distributions,
impact the risk rating assigned by the Firm to that loan.
collections and the historical loss experience of a business seg-
Management also applies its judgment to derive loss factors ment, differ across business lines. For example, credit card revolv-
associated with each credit facility. These loss factors are deter- ing credit has significantly higher charge-off ratios than fixed
mined by facility structure, collateral and type of obligor. mortgage credit. Determination of each factor is based primarily
Wherever possible, the Firm uses independent, verifiable data or on statistical data and macroeconomic assumptions.
the Firm’s own historical loss experience in its models for esti-
mating these loss factors. Many factors can affect manage- Residual component
ment’s estimates of specific loss and expected loss, including Management’s judgments are also applied when considering
volatility of default probabilities, rating migrations and loss uncertainties that relate to current macroeconomic and political
severity. For example, judgment is required to determine how conditions, the impact of currency devaluation on cross-border
many years of data to include when estimating the possible exposures, changes in underwriting standards, unexpected cor-
severity of the loss. If a full credit cycle is not captured in the relations within the portfolio or other factors. For example,
data, then estimates may be inaccurate. Likewise, judgment is judgment as to political developments in a particular country
applied to determine whether the loss-severity factor should be will affect management’s assessment of potential loss in the
calculated as an average over the entire credit cycle or whether credits that have exposure to that country. A separate
to apply the loss-severity factor implied at a particular point in allowance component, the residual component, is maintained
the credit cycle. The application of different loss-severity factors to cover these uncertainties, at December 31, 2003, in the
would change the amount of the allowance for credit losses

commercial portfolio. It is anticipated that the residual compo- Trading and available-for-sale portfolios
nent will range between 10% and 20% of the total allowance
Substantially all of the Firm’s securities held for trading and
for credit losses.
investment purposes (“long” positions) and securities that the
Firm has sold to other parties but does not own (“short” posi-
Fair value of financial instruments tions) are valued based on quoted market prices. However, cer-
A portion of JPMorgan Chase’s assets and liabilities are carried tain securities are less actively traded and, therefore, are not
at fair value, including trading assets and liabilities, AFS securi- always able to be valued based on quoted market prices. The
ties and private equity investments. Held-for-sale loans and determination of their fair value requires management judg-
mortgage servicing rights are carried at the lower of fair value ment, as this determination may require benchmarking to similar
or cost. At December 31, 2003, approximately $346 billion of instruments or analyzing default and recovery rates.
the Firm’s assets were recorded at fair value.
As few derivative contracts are listed on an exchange, the majority
Fair value of a financial instrument is defined as the amount at of the Firm’s derivative positions are valued using internally devel-
which the instrument could be exchanged in a current transaction oped models that use as their basis readily observable market
between willing parties, other than in a forced or liquidation sale. parameters – that is, parameters that are actively quoted and can
The majority of the Firm’s assets reported at fair value are based be validated to external sources, including industry-pricing services.
on quoted market prices or on internally developed models that Certain derivatives, however, are valued based on models with
are based on independently sourced market parameters, including significant unobservable market parameters – that is, parameters
interest rate yield curves, option volatilities and currency rates. that may be estimated and are, therefore, subject to management
judgment to substantiate the model valuation. These instruments
The valuation process takes into consideration factors such as
are normally either less actively traded or trade activity is one-way.
liquidity and concentration concerns and, for the derivative
Examples include long-dated interest rate or currency swaps,
portfolio, counterparty credit risk. See the discussion of CVA on
where swap rates may be unobservable for longer maturities;
page 59 of this Annual Report. Management applies judgment
and certain credit products, where correlation and recovery rates
in determining the factors used in the valuation process. For
are unobservable.
example, there is often limited market data to rely on when
estimating the fair value of a large or aged position. Similarly, Management judgment includes recording fair value adjust-
judgment must be applied in estimating prices for less readily ments (i.e., reductions) to model valuations to account for
observable external parameters. Finally, other factors such as parameter uncertainty when valuing complex or less actively
model assumptions, market dislocations and unexpected corre- traded derivative transactions.
lations can affect estimates of fair value. Imprecision in estimat-
The table below summarizes the Firm’s trading and AFS portfo-
ing these factors can impact the amount of revenue or loss
lios by valuation methodology at December 31, 2003:
recorded for a particular position.
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 vari- more transparent, the Firm refines its valuation methodologies.
ous controls in place. These include: an independent review and The Valuation Control Group within the Finance area is responsible
approval of valuation models; detailed review and explanation for reviewing the accuracy of the valuations of positions taken
for profit and loss analyzed daily and over time; decomposing within the Investment Bank.
the model valuations for certain structured derivative instru-
For a discussion of market risk management, including the
ments into their components and benchmarking valuations,
model review process, see Market Risk Management on pages
where possible, to similar products; and validating valuation esti-
66–72 of this Annual Report. For further details regarding the
mates through actual cash settlement. As markets and products
Firm’s valuation methodologies, see Note 31 on pages 120–123
develop and the pricing for certain derivative products becomes
of this Annual Report.

Loans held-for-sale carrying values of private investments held by JPMP. For addi-
tional information about private equity investments, see the
The fair value of loans in the held-for-sale portfolio is generally
Private equity risk management discussion on page 74 and
based on observable market prices of similar instruments,
Note 15 on page 106 of this Annual Report.
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 MSRs and certain other retained interests
is discounted using a rate appropriate for each maturity that MSRs and certain other retained interests from securitization
incorporates the effects of interest rate changes. activities do not trade in an active, open market with readily
observable prices. For example, sales of MSRs do occur, but the
Private equity investments precise terms and conditions are typically not readily available.
Accordingly, the Firm estimates the fair value of MSRs and cer-
Valuation of private investments held by JPMP requires signifi-
tain other retained interests using a discounted future cash flow
cant management judgment due to the absence of quoted
model. The model considers portfolio characteristics, contractu-
market prices, inherent lack of liquidity and long-term nature of
ally specified servicing fees and prepayment assumptions, delin-
such assets. Private investments are initially valued based on
quency rates, late charges, other ancillary revenues, costs to
cost. The carrying values of private investments are adjusted
service and other economic factors. The Firm compares its fair
from cost to reflect both positive and negative changes evi-
value estimates and assumptions to observable market data
denced by financing events with third-party capital providers. In
where available, to recent market activity and to actual portfolio
addition, these investments are subject to ongoing impairment
experience. Management believes that the fair values and related
reviews by JPMP’s senior investment professionals. A variety of
assumptions are comparable to those used by other market partici-
factors are reviewed and monitored to assess impairment
pants. For a further discussion of the most significant assumptions
including, but not limited to, operating performance and future
used to value these retained interests, as well as the applicable
expectations, industry valuations of comparable public compa-
stress tests for those assumptions, see Notes 13 and 16 on pages
nies, changes in market outlook and the third-party financing
100–103 and 107–109, respectively, of this Annual Report.
environment over time. The Valuation Control Group within the
Finance area is responsible for reviewing the accuracy of the
Nonexchange-traded commodity contracts at fair value

In the normal course of business, JPMorgan Chase trades nonexchange-traded commodity contracts are primarily energy-
nonexchange-traded commodity contracts. To determine the related contracts. The following table summarizes the changes in
fair value of these contracts, the Firm uses various fair value fair value for nonexchange-traded commodity contracts for the
estimation techniques, which are primarily based on internal year ended December 31, 2003:
models with significant observable market parameters. The Firm’s
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

Accounting and reporting developments

Accounting for stock-based compensation a financial instrument that is within its scope as a liability (or an
asset in some circumstances), because that financial instrument
Effective January 1, 2003, JPMorgan Chase adopted SFAS 123,
embodies an obligation of the issuer. Initially, SFAS 150 was
which establishes the accounting for stock-based compensation
effective for all financial instruments entered into or modified
and requires that all such transactions, including stock options,
after May 31, 2003, and was otherwise effective beginning July
be accounted for at fair value and be recognized in earnings.
1, 2003. In November 2003, the FASB deferred the effective
Awards outstanding as of December 31, 2002, if not subse-
date of the statement with respect to mandatorily redeemable
quently modified, continue to be accounted for under APB 25.
financial instruments of certain nonpublic entities and for cer-
For a further discussion on the adoption of SFAS 123, see Note 7
tain mandatorily redeemable noncontrolling interests. The imple-
on pages 93–95 of this Annual Report.
mentation of SFAS 150 did not have a material impact on the
Firm’s Consolidated financial statements.
Consolidation of variable interest entities
In January 2003, the FASB issued FIN 46. Entities that would be Derivative instruments and hedging activities
assessed for consolidation under FIN 46 are typically referred to
In April 2003, the FASB issued SFAS 149, which amends and
as Special-Purpose Entities (“SPEs”), although non-SPE-type enti-
clarifies the accounting for derivative instruments, including cer-
ties may also be subject to the guidance. FIN 46 requires a vari-
tain derivative instruments embedded in other contracts, and for
able interest entity (“VIE”) to be consolidated by a company if
hedging activities under SFAS 133. Specifically, SFAS 149 clarifies
that company is subject to a majority of the risk of loss from the
the circumstances under which a contract with an initial net
variable interest entity’s activities or entitled to receive a majority
investment meets the characteristics of a derivative, and when a
of the entity’s residual returns, or both. Effective February 1,
derivative contains a financing component that warrants special
2003, the Firm implemented FIN 46 for VIEs created or modified
reporting in the Consolidated statement of cash flows. SFAS
after January 31, 2003, in which the Firm has an interest.
149 is generally effective for contracts entered into or modified
Effective July 1, 2003, the Firm adopted the provisions of FIN 46 after June 30, 2003; implementation did not have a material
for all VIEs originated prior to February 1, 2003, excluding cer- effect on the Firm’s Consolidated financial statements in 2003.
tain investments made by JPMP. The FASB provided a specific
deferral for nonregistered investment companies until the pro- Accounting for costs associated with exit or
posed Statement of Position on the clarification of the scope of disposal activities
the Investment Company Audit Guide is finalized, which is
In June 2002, the FASB issued SFAS 146, which establishes new
expected to occur in mid-2004. The Firm has deferred consolida-
accounting for costs associated with exit or disposal activities
tion of $2.7 billion of additional assets related to JPMP as of
initiated after December 31, 2002. SFAS 146 requires a liability
December 31, 2003. For further details regarding FIN 46, refer
for a cost associated with an exit or disposal activity to be
to Note 14 on pages 103–106 of this Annual Report.
recorded when that liability is incurred and can be measured at
In December 2003, the FASB issued a revision to FIN 46 (“FIN fair value. Under the previous rules, if management approved an
46R”) to address various technical corrections and implementa- exit plan in one quarter, the costs of that plan generally would
tion issues that have arisen since its issuance. The provisions of have been recorded in the same quarter even if the costs were
FIN 46R are effective for financial periods ending after March 15, not incurred until a later quarter. In contrast, under SFAS 146,
2004, thus the Firm will implement the new provisions effective some costs may qualify for immediate recognition, while other
March 31, 2004. As FIN 46R was recently issued and contains costs may be incurred over one or more quarters. The impact of
provisions that the accounting profession continues to analyze, SFAS 146 will generally be to spread out the timing of the
the Firm’s assessment of the impact of FIN 46R on all VIEs with recognition of costs associated with exit or disposal activities.
which it is involved is ongoing. However, at this time and based
on management’s current interpretation, the Firm does not Impairment of available-for-sale and held-to-
believe that the implementation of FIN 46R will have a material maturity securities
impact on the Firm’s Consolidated financial statements, earnings
In November 2003, the Emerging Issues Task Force (“EITF”)
or capital resources.
reached a consensus on certain additional quantitative and
qualitative disclosure requirements in connection with its
Accounting for certain financial instruments deliberations of Issue 03-1, the impairment model for available-
with characteristics of both liabilities and equity for-sale and held-to-maturity securities under SFAS 115. See
In May 2003, the FASB issued SFAS 150, which establishes stan- Note 9 on page 97 of this Annual Report which sets forth the
dards for how an issuer classifies and measures in its statement disclosures now required.
of financial position certain financial instruments with character-
istics of both liabilities and equity. It requires that an issuer classify

Goodwill and other intangible assets Accounting for interest rate lock commitments
Effective January 1, 2002, the Firm adopted SFAS 142 which (“IRLCs”)
establishes the accounting for intangible assets (other than IRLCs associated with mortgages (commitments to extend credit
those acquired in a business combination). It also addresses the at specified interest rates) are currently accounted for as deriva-
accounting for goodwill and other intangible assets subsequent tive instruments in accordance with SFAS 149. IRLCs are recorded
to an acquisition. For a further discussion on the adoption of at fair value, with changes in fair value recorded in the income
SFAS 142, see Note 16 on page 107 of this Annual Report. statement.
In October 2003, the FASB added a new project to its agenda to

Accounting for certain loans or debt securities
clarify SFAS 133, with respect to the information that should be
acquired in a transfer
used to determine the fair value of IRLCs that are accounted for
In December 2003, the AICPA issued Statement of Position 03-3 as derivatives, and whether loan commitments should be reported
(“SOP 03-3”), Accounting for Certain Loans or Debt Securities as assets by the issuer of that commitment (i.e., the lender). In
Acquired in a Transfer. SOP 03-3 provides guidance on the December 2003, the SEC prescribed guidance that IRLCs were
accounting for differences between contractual and expected deemed to be written options from the standpoint of the mort-
cash flows from the purchaser’s initial investment in loans or debt gage lender and, as a result, should be recorded as a liability at
securities acquired in a transfer, if those differences are attributa- inception and remain a liability until the loan is funded. This
ble, at least in part, to credit quality. Among other things, SOP guidance will be effective for IRLCs entered into with potential
03-3: (1) prohibits the recognition of the excess of contractual borrowers after March 31, 2004. This guidance will impact the
cash flows over expected cash flows as an adjustment of yield, timing of revenue recognition related to IRLCs. Further, the
loss accrual or valuation allowance at the time of purchase; (2) impact of this guidance on the Firm’s current practice will be
requires that subsequent increases in expected cash flows be rec- influenced by the volume of new IRLCs, the volume of loan
ognized prospectively through an adjustment of yield; and (3) sales and the changes in market interest rates during the period.
requires that subsequent decreases in expected cash flows be rec- The Firm is currently assessing the impact of this guidance on its
ognized as an impairment. In addition, SOP 03-3 prohibits the results of operations and hedging strategies.
creation or carrying over of a valuation allowance in the initial
accounting of all loans within its scope that are acquired in a Management’s Report on Internal Control over
transfer. SOP 03-3 becomes effective for loans or debt securities Financial Reporting
acquired in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2004.
In June 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted
final rules under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Accounting for trading derivatives
(“Section 404”). Commencing with its 2004 annual report,
In October 2002, the EITF concluded on Issue 02–3, which, JPMorgan Chase will be required to include a report of manage-
effective January 1, 2003, precludes mark-to-market accounting ment on the Firm’s internal control over financial reporting.
for energy-related contracts that do not meet the definition The internal control report must include a statement of man-
of a derivative under SFAS 133 (i.e., transportation, storage or agement’s responsibility for establishing and maintaining ade-
capacity contracts). The Firm implemented this provision of Issue quate internal control over financial reporting for the Firm; of
02–3 effective January 1, 2003; implementation did not have a management’s assessment of the effectiveness of the Firm’s
material effect on the Firm’s Consolidated statement of income. internal control over financial reporting as of year-end; of the
In November 2002, as part of the discussion of Issue 02–3, the framework used by management to evaluate the effectiveness
FASB staff further confirmed their view that an entity should not of the Firm’s internal control over financial reporting; and that
recognize profit at the inception of a trade involving a derivative the Firm’s independent accounting firm has issued an attesta-
financial instrument in the absence of: (a) quoted market prices tion report on management’s assessment of the Firm’s internal
in an active market, (b) observable prices of other current mar- control over financial reporting, which report is also required to
ket transactions or (c) other observable data supporting a valua- be filed as part of the Annual Report.
tion technique. This clarification did not have a material impact
on the Firm’s Consolidated statements of income in 2002 and
2003. The FASB intends in 2004 to continue to focus on issues
relating to the fair value of financial instruments.

Comparison between 2002 and 2001

JPMorgan Chase’s 2002 net income was $1.7 billion, relatively The Firm’s total noninterest expense was $22.8 billion in 2002,
flat when compared with the prior year. Net income per diluted down 4% from 2001, with both years incurring several large
share was $0.80 in 2002, unchanged from 2001. charges. In 2002, the costs associated with merger and restruc-
turing initiatives were $1.2 billion, versus $2.5 billion in 2001.
Total revenues for 2002 of $29.6 billion were up by only 1%
In addition, in 2002, the Firm recorded a $1.3 billion charge
from 2001. The consumer businesses of the Firm contributed to
in connection with the settlement of its Enron-related surety
the higher revenue, benefiting primarily from the gradual reduc-
litigation and the establishment of a reserve related to certain
tion in interest rates in 2002. Mortgage originations at Chase
material litigation, proceedings and investigations, as well as a
Home Finance in high-margin sectors like retail, wholesale, tele-
$98 million charge for unoccupied excess real estate. Excluding
phone-based and e-commerce reached $113 billion, 30%
the impact of these charges in both years, the Firm’s full-year
above the level reached in 2001. This exceptional growth, how-
2002 noninterest expense of $20.2 billion was lower than that
ever, was partly offset by the sluggishness in the wholesale busi-
of 2001. Severance and related costs from expense manage-
nesses, primarily IB, due to the continued slowdown in market
ment initiatives, approximately 70% of which were in IB, added
activities, a reflection of the weak economic environment and
$890 million to noninterest expense for 2002. These charges
diminished investor confidence.
were more than offset by the continued focus on expenses,
From a business-segment point of view, the revenue results which kept spending levels low, and by the adoption in 2002
were mixed in 2002. CFS revenue of $13.4 billion grew by 24% of SFAS 142, which eliminated the amortization of goodwill.
over 2001, reflecting high volumes across all consumer credit
All business segments reported lower-to-flat noninterest expenses,
businesses and significant gains in Chase Home Finance from
except CFS, where higher business volumes resulted in expense
the hedging of MSRs, partially offset by the negative impact of
growth. IB and IMPB reduced headcount in response to lower
lower interest rates on deposits. TSS reported modest revenue
market activity levels. At TSS, tight expense management in
growth, as strong gains in Treasury Services and Institutional
2002 allowed for investments while keeping expense levels
Trust Services, attributable mostly to new businesses, were offset
essentially flat with 2001.
by a decline in Investor Services, which suffered from the lower
value of assets held under custody. These increases were offset The Provision for credit losses increased to $4.3 billion in 2002,
by declines in the Firm’s wholesale businesses. In IB, revenue up 36% from the prior year. This was principally attributable to
declined 15%, driven by the reduction in capital markets and troubled commercial credits in the Telecommunications and
lending revenue, as well as in Investment banking fees. The Cable sectors and the impact of the Providian acquisition in
reduction in capital markets revenue was primarily attributable 2002, partially offset by a decrease in the consumer provision,
to lower portfolio management revenue related to both fixed reflecting the effect of credit card securitizations.
income and equities transactions. IMPB’s revenue in 2002
Income tax expense in 2002 was $856 million, compared with
declined 11% from 2001, reflecting the depreciation in the
$847 million in 2001. The effective tax rate was 34% in 2002,
equities market and institutional outflows across all asset classes.
versus 33% in 2001. The increase in the effective tax rate was
JPMP recognized private equity losses of $733 million in 2002,
principally attributable to the level of income earned in certain
compared with losses of $1.2 billion in 2001, as a result of
state and local tax jurisdictions in 2002.
lower levels of write-downs and write-offs, particularly in the
Technology and Telecommunications sectors.

Management’s report on responsibility for financial reporting
and Report of independent auditors J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
To our stockholders:
The management of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. has the responsibility The accounting firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP has
for preparing the accompanying consolidated financial statements performed an independent audit of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.’s
and for their integrity and objectivity. The statements were prepared financial statements. Management has made available to
in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP all of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.’s
United States of America. The consolidated financial statements financial records and related data, as well as the minutes of
include amounts that are based on management’s best estimates stockholders’ and directors’ meetings. Furthermore,
and judgments. Management also prepared the other information management believes that all representations made to
in the Annual Report and is responsible for its accuracy and con- PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP during its audit were valid and
sistency with the consolidated financial statements. appropriate. The accounting firm’s report appears below.
Management maintains a comprehensive system of internal con-

trol to provide reasonable assurance of the proper authorization
of transactions, the safeguarding of assets and the reliability of
the financial records. The system of internal control provides for
appropriate division of responsibility and is documented by written
William B. Harrison, Jr.
policies and procedures that are communicated to employees.
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. maintains a strong internal auditing Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
program that independently assesses the effectiveness of the sys-
tem of internal control and recommends possible improvements.
Management believes that at December 31, 2003, J.P. Morgan
Chase & Co. maintained an effective system of internal control.
The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors reviews the Dina Dublon
systems of internal control and financial reporting. The Com-
mittee, which is comprised of directors who are independent from Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., meets and consults regularly with man-
agement, the internal auditors and the independent accountants
to review the scope and results of their work. January 20, 2004
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP • 1177 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS • NEW YORK, NY 10036
To the Board of Directors and stockholders of

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.:
In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated balance sheets evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
and the related consolidated statements of income, of changes statements, assessing the accounting principles used and signifi-
in stockholders’ equity and of cash flows present fairly, in all cant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall
material respects, the financial position of J.P. Morgan Chase & financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits pro-
Co. and its subsidiaries at December 31, 2003 and December 31, vide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
2002, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for
each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2003, As discussed in Note 16 to the financial statements, J.P. Morgan
in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in Chase & Co. adopted, as of January 1, 2002, Statement of
the United States of America. These financial statements are Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, Goodwill and Other
the responsibility of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.’s management; Intangible Assets.
our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial state-
ments based on our audits. We conducted our audits of these
statements in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America, which require that
we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance
about whether the financial statements are free of material January 20, 2004
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,

Consolidated statement of income
Year ended December 31, (in millions, except per share data) 2003 2002 2001
Revenue
Investment banking fees $ 2,890 $ 2,763 $ 3,612
Trading revenue 4,427 2,675 4,972
Fees and commissions 10,652 10,387 9,655
Private equity gains (losses) 33 (746) (1,233)
Securities gains 1,446 1,563 866
Mortgage fees and related income 892 988 386
Other revenue 579 458 284
Total noninterest revenue 20,919 18,088 18,542
Interest income 23,444 25,284 32,181
Interest expense 11,107 13,758 21,379
Net interest income 12,337 11,526 10,802
Revenue before provision for credit losses 33,256 29,614 29,344
Total net revenue 31,716 25,283 26,162
Noninterest expense
Compensation expense 11,695 10,983 11,844
Occupancy expense 1,912 1,606 1,348
Technology and communications expense 2,844 2,554 2,631
Other expense 5,137 5,111 5,250
Surety settlement and litigation reserve 100 1,300 —
Merger and restructuring costs — 1,210 2,523
Total noninterest expense 21,688 22,764 23,596
Income before income tax expense and cumulative effect of accounting change 10,028 2,519 2,566
Income tax expense 3,309 856 847
Income before cumulative effect of accounting change 6,719 1,663 1,719

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle (net of tax) — — (25)
Net income $ 6,719 $ 1,663 $ 1,694
Net income applicable to common stock $ 6,668 $ 1,612 $ 1,628
Average common shares outstanding
Basic 2,009 1,984 1,972
Diluted 2,055 2,009 2,024
Net income per common share(a)
Basic $ 3.32 $ 0.81 $ 0.83
Diluted 3.24 0.80 0.80
Cash dividends per common share 1.36 1.36 1.36
(a) Basic and diluted earnings per share have been reduced by $0.01 in 2001 because of the impact of the adoption of SFAS 133 relating to the accounting for derivative instruments and
hedging activities.
The Notes to consolidated financial statements are an integral part of these statements.

Consolidated balance sheet
December 31, (in millions, except share data) 2003 2002
Assets
Cash and due from banks $ 20,268 $ 19,218
Deposits with banks 10,175 8,942
Federal funds sold and securities purchased under resale agreements 76,868 65,809
Securities borrowed 41,834 34,143
Trading assets:
Debt and equity instruments (including assets pledged of $81,312 in 2003 and $88,900 in 2002) 169,120 165,199
Derivative receivables 83,751 83,102
Securities:
Available-for-sale (including assets pledged of $31,639 in 2003 and $50,468 in 2002) 60,068 84,032
Held-to-maturity (fair value: $186 in 2003 and $455 in 2002) 176 431
Loans (net of Allowance for loan losses of $4,523 in 2003 and $5,350 in 2002) 214,995 211,014
Private equity investments 7,250 8,228
Accrued interest and accounts receivable 12,356 14,137
Premises and equipment 6,487 6,829
Goodwill 8,511 8,096
Other intangible assets 6,480 4,806
Other assets 52,573 44,814
Total assets $ 770,912 $ 758,800
Liabilities
Deposits:
U.S.:
Noninterest-bearing $ 73,154 $ 74,664
Interest-bearing 125,855 109,743
Non-U.S.:
Noninterest-bearing 6,311 7,365
Interest-bearing 121,172 112,981
Total deposits 326,492 304,753
Federal funds purchased and securities sold under repurchase agreements 113,466 169,483
Commercial paper 14,284 16,591
Other borrowed funds 8,925 8,946
Trading liabilities:
Debt and equity instruments 78,222 66,864
Derivative payables 71,226 66,227
Accounts payable, accrued expenses and other liabilities (including the
Allowance for lending-related commitments of $324 in 2003 and $363 in 2002) 45,066 38,440
Beneficial interests issued by consolidated variable interest entities 12,295 —
Long-term debt 48,014 39,751
Junior subordinated deferrable interest debentures held by trusts
that issued guaranteed capital debt securities 6,768 —
Guaranteed preferred beneficial interests in capital debt securities issued by consolidated trusts — 5,439
Total liabilities 724,758 716,494
Commitments and contingencies (see Note 27)
Stockholders’ equity
Preferred stock 1,009 1,009
Common stock (authorized 4,500,000,000 shares,
issued 2,044,436,509 shares in 2003 and 2,023,566,387 shares in 2002) 2,044 2,024
Capital surplus 13,512 13,222
Retained earnings 29,681 25,851
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) (30) 1,227
Treasury stock, at cost (1,816,495 shares in 2003 and 24,859,844 shares in 2002) (62) (1,027)
Total stockholders’ equity 46,154 42,306
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity $ 770,912 $ 758,800

Consolidated statement of changes in stockholders’ equity
Year ended December 31, (in millions, except per share data) 2003 2002 2001
Preferred stock
Balance at beginning of year $ 1,009 $ 1,009 $ 1,520
Redemption of preferred stock — — (450)
Purchase of treasury stock — — (61)
Balance at end of year 1,009 1,009 1,009
Common stock
Balance at beginning of year 2,024 1,997 1,940
Issuance of common stock 20 27 55
Issuance of common stock for purchase accounting acquisitions — — 2
Capital surplus
Issuance of common stock and options for purchase accounting acquisitions — — 79
Shares issued and commitments to issue common stock for
employee stock-based awards and related tax effects 290 727 818
Retained earnings
Net income 6,719 1,663 1,694
Cash dividends declared:
Preferred stock (51) (51) (66)
Common stock ($1.36 per share each year) (2,838) (2,754) (2,731)
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)

Balance at beginning of year 1,227 (442) (241)
Other comprehensive income (loss) (1,257) 1,669 (201)
Balance at end of year (30) 1,227 (442)
Treasury stock, at cost

Balance at beginning of year (1,027) (953) (575)
Purchase of treasury stock — — (871)
Reissuance from treasury stock 1,082 107 710
Forfeitures to treasury stock (117) (181) (217)
Balance at end of year (62) (1,027) (953)
Total stockholders’ equity $ 46,154 $ 42,306 $ 41,099
Comprehensive income
Net income $ 6,719 $ 1,663 $ 1,694
Other comprehensive income (loss) (1,257) 1,669 (201)
Comprehensive income $ 5,462 $ 3,332 $ 1,493

Consolidated statement of cash flows
Year ended December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002 2001
Operating activities
Net income $ 6,719 $ 1,663 $ 1,694
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by (used in)
operating activities:
Surety settlement and litigation reserve 100 1,300 —
Depreciation and amortization 3,101 2,979 2,891
Deferred tax provision (benefit) 1,428 1,636 (638)
Private equity unrealized (gains) losses (77) 641 1,884
Net change in:
Trading assets (2,671) (58,183) 26,217
Securities borrowed (7,691) 2,437 (4,209)
Accrued interest and accounts receivable 1,809 677 5,819
Other assets (9,916) 6,182 (26,756)
Trading liabilities 15,769 25,402 (20,143)
Accounts payable, accrued expenses and other liabilities 5,873 (12,964) 7,472
Other, net (1,383) (1,235) (520)
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities 14,601 (25,134) (3,107)
Investing activities
Net change in:
Deposits with banks (1,233) 3,801 (4,410)
Federal funds sold and securities purchased under resale agreements (11,059) (2,082) 5,747
Loans due to sales 138,881 72,742 47,687
Loans due to securitizations 31,989 24,262 21,888
Other loans, net (171,779) (98,695) (72,149)
Other, net 1,541 (3,398) 3,431
Held-to-maturity securities: Proceeds 221 85 113
Purchases — (40) (2)
Available-for-sale securities: Proceeds from maturities 10,548 5,094 7,980
Proceeds from sales 315,738 219,385 186,434
Purchases (301,854) (244,547) (182,920)
Cash used in acquisitions (669) (72) (1,677)
Proceeds from divestitures of nonstrategic businesses and assets 94 121 196
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities 12,418 (23,344) 12,318
Financing activities
Net change in:
U.S. deposits 14,602 9,985 29,119
Non-U.S. deposits 7,249 1,118 (14,834)
Federal funds purchased and securities sold under repurchase agreements (56,017) 41,038 (3,293)
Commercial paper and other borrowed funds 555 (4,675) (15,346)
Other, net 133 — (91)
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt and capital securities 17,195 11,971 8,986
Repayments of long-term debt and capital securities (8,316) (12,185) (12,574)
Proceeds from the net issuance of stock and stock-related awards 1,213 725 1,429
Redemption of preferred stock of subsidiary — (550) —
Treasury stock purchased — — (871)
Cash dividends paid (2,865) (2,784) (2,697)
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities (26,251) 44,643 (10,683)
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and due from banks 282 453 100
Net increase (decrease) in cash and due from banks 1,050 (3,382) (1,372)
Cash and due from banks at the beginning of the year 19,218 22,600 23,972
Cash and due from banks at the end of the year $ 20,268 $ 19,218 $ 22,600
Cash interest paid $ 10,976 $ 13,534 $ 22,987
Cash income taxes paid $ 1,337 $ 1,253 $ 479

Notes to consolidated financial statements
Note 1 Basis of Presentation activities of the SPE are essentially predetermined in their
entirety at the inception of the vehicle and that the transferor
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (“JPMorgan Chase” or the “Firm”) is cannot exercise control over the entity. Entities meeting these
a financial holding company for a group of subsidiaries that criteria are not consolidated by the transferors. The Firm prima-
provide a wide range of services to a global client base that rily follows the QSPE model for the securitizations of its
includes corporations, governments, institutions and individuals. residential and commercial mortgages, credit card loans and
For a discussion of the Firm’s business segment information, see automobile loans. For further details, see Note 13 on pages
Note 34 on pages 126–127 of this Annual Report. 100–103 of this Annual Report.
The accounting and financial reporting policies of JPMorgan When the SPE does not meet the QSPE criteria, consolidation is
Chase and its subsidiaries conform to accounting principles assessed pursuant to FIN 46. A VIE is defined as an entity that:
generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) lacks enough equity investment at risk to permit the entity to
and prevailing industry practices. Additionally, where applicable, finance its activities without additional subordinated financial sup-
the policies conform to the accounting and reporting guidelines port from other parties; has equity owners who are unable to
prescribed by bank regulatory authorities. make decisions, and/or; has equity owners that do not absorb or
receive the entity’s losses and returns. VIEs encompass vehicles tra-
Consolidation ditionally viewed as SPEs and may also include other entities or
The consolidated financial statements include accounts of legal structures, such as certain limited-purpose subsidiaries, trusts
JPMorgan Chase and other entities in which the Firm has a or investment funds. Entities excluded from the scope of FIN 46
controlling financial interest. All material intercompany balances include all QSPEs, regardless of whether the Firm was the trans-
and transactions have been eliminated. feror, as long as the Firm does not have the unilateral ability to
liquidate the vehicle or cause it to no longer meet the QSPE crite-
The usual condition for a controlling financial interest is owner- ria, and other entities that meet certain criteria specified in FIN 46.
ship of a majority of the voting interests of an entity. However,
a controlling financial interest may also exist in entities, such as FIN 46 requires a variable interest holder (counterparty to a VIE)
special purpose entities (“SPEs”), through arrangements that do to consolidate the VIE if that party will absorb a majority of the
not involve voting interests. expected losses of the VIE, receive a majority of the residual
returns of the VIE, or both. This party is considered the primary
SPEs are an important part of the financial markets, providing beneficiary of the entity. The determination of whether the Firm
market liquidity by facilitating investors’ access to specific port- meets the criteria to be considered the primary beneficiary of a
folios of assets and risks. They are, for example, critical to the VIE requires an evaluation of all transactions (such as investments,
functioning of the mortgage- and asset-backed securities and liquidity commitments, derivatives and fee arrangements) with
commercial paper markets. SPEs may be organized as trusts, the entity. The foundation for this evaluation is an expected-loss
partnerships or corporations and are typically set up for a single, calculation prescribed by FIN 46. For further details, see Note 14
discrete purpose. SPEs are not operating entities and usually on pages 103-106 of this Annual Report.
have no employees and a limited life. The basic SPE structure
involves a company selling assets to the SPE. The SPE funds the Prior to the Firm’s adoption of FIN 46, the decision of whether or
purchase of those assets by issuing securities to investors. The not to consolidate depended on the applicable accounting princi-
legal documents that govern the transaction describe how ples for non-QSPEs, including a determination regarding the
the cash earned on the assets must be allocated to the SPE’s nature and amount of investment made by third parties in the
investors and other parties that have rights to those cash flows. SPE. Consideration was given to, among other factors, whether a
SPEs can be structured to be bankruptcy-remote, thereby insu- third party had made a substantive equity investment in the SPE;
lating investors from the impact of the creditors of other which party had voting rights, if any; who made decisions about
entities, including the seller of the assets. the assets in the SPE; and who was at risk of loss. The SPE was
consolidated if JPMorgan Chase retained or acquired control over
There are two different accounting frameworks applicable to the risks and rewards of the assets in the SPE.
SPEs, depending on the nature of the entity and the Firm’s rela-
tion to that entity; the qualifying SPE (“QSPE”) framework Financial assets sold to an SPE or a VIE are derecognized when:
under SFAS 140 and the variable interest entity (“VIE”) (1) the assets are legally isolated from the Firm’s creditors, (2)
framework under FIN 46. The QSPE framework is applicable the accounting criteria for a sale are met and (3) the SPE is a
when an entity transfers (sells) financial assets to an SPE meet- QSPE under SFAS 140, or the SPE can pledge or exchange the
ing certain criteria. These criteria are designed to ensure that the financial assets. All significant transactions and retained interests

between the Firm, QSPEs and nonconsolidated VIEs are reflected Trading activities Note 3 Page 87
on JPMorgan Chase’s Consolidated balance sheet or in the Other noninterest revenue Note 4 Page 88
Notes to consolidated financial statements. Postretirement employee benefit plans Note 6 Page 89
Employee stock-based incentives Note 7 Page 93
Investments in companies that are considered to be voting- Securities Note 9 Page 96
interest entities under FIN 46, in which the Firm has significant Securities financing activities Note 10 Page 98
influence over operating and financing decisions (generally Loans Note 11 Page 98
defined as owning a voting or economic interest of 20% to Allowance for credit losses Note 12 Page 100
50%), are accounted for in accordance with the equity method Loan securitizations Note 13 Page 100
Variable interest entities Note 14 Page 103
of accounting. These investments are generally included in
Private equity investments Note 15 Page 106
Other assets, and the Firm’s share of income or loss is included Goodwill and other intangibles Note 16 Page 107
in Other revenue. For a discussion of private equity investments, Premises and equipment Note 17 Page 109
see Note 15 on page 106 of this Annual Report. Income taxes Note 24 Page 113
Derivative instruments and hedging activities Note 28 Page 116
Assets held for clients in an agency or fiduciary capacity by the Off–balance sheet lending-related financial instruments
Firm are not assets of JPMorgan Chase and are not included in and guarantees Note 29 Page 117
the Consolidated balance sheet. Fair value of financial instruments Note 31 Page 120
Certain amounts in prior periods have been reclassified to

conform to the current presentation. Note 2 Business changes and developments
Use of estimates in the preparation of consolidated Agreement to merge with Bank One Corporation
financial statements On January 14, 2004, JPMorgan Chase and Bank One
The preparation of consolidated financial statements requires Corporation (“Bank One”) announced an agreement to merge.
management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the The merger agreement, which has been approved by the boards
reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenue, expense and dis- of directors of both companies, provides for a stock-for-stock
closures of contingent assets and liabilities. Actual results could merger in which 1.32 shares of JPMorgan Chase common stock
be different from these estimates. will be exchanged, on a tax-free basis, for each share of Bank
One common stock. The merged company, headquartered in
Foreign currency translation New York, will be known as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and
will continue to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under
Assets and liabilities denominated in foreign currencies are
the symbol JPM.
translated into U.S. dollars using applicable rates of exchange.
JPMorgan Chase translates revenues and expenses using The merger is subject to approval by the shareholders of both
exchange rates at the transaction date. institutions as well as U.S. federal and state and non-U.S. regu-
latory authorities. Completion of the transaction is expected to
Gains and losses relating to translating functional currency
occur in mid-2004.
financial statements for U.S. reporting are included in Other
comprehensive income (loss) within Stockholders’ equity. Gains Acquisition of the Providian Master Trust
and losses relating to nonfunctional currency transactions,
including non-U.S. operations where the functional currency On February 5, 2002, JPMorgan Chase acquired the Providian
is the U.S. dollar and operations in highly inflationary environ- Master Trust from Providian National Bank. The acquisition
ments, are reported in the Consolidated statement of income. consisted of credit card receivables of approximately $7.9 billion
and related relationships. The acquired portfolio consisted of
Statement of cash flows approximately 3.3 million credit card accounts.
For JPMorgan Chase’s Consolidated statement of cash flows,

cash and cash equivalents are defined as those amounts Note 3 Trading activities
included in Cash and due from banks.
Trading assets include debt and equity securities held for trading
Significant accounting policies purposes that JPMorgan Chase owns (“long” positions). Trading
liabilities include debt and equity securities that the Firm has sold
The following table identifies JPMorgan Chase’s significant to other parties but does not own (“short” positions). The Firm
accounting policies and the Note and page where a detailed is obligated to purchase securities at a future date to cover the
description of each policy can be found: short positions. Included in Trading assets and Trading liabilities

are the reported receivables (unrealized gains) and payables Average Trading assets and liabilities were as follows for the
(unrealized losses) related to derivatives. These amounts include periods indicated:
the effect of master netting agreements as permitted under
Year ended December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002
FIN 39. Trading positions are carried at fair value on the
Consolidated balance sheet. Trading assets – debt and equity instruments $ 154,597 $ 149,173
Trading assets – derivative receivables 85,628 73,641
Trading revenue
Trading liabilities – debt and equity instruments(a) $ 72,877 $ 64,725
Year ended December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002 2001 Trading liabilities – derivative payables 67,783 57,607
(a) Primarily represents securities sold, not yet purchased.
Equities(a) $ 764 $ 331 $ 1,541
Fixed income and other(b) 3,663 2,344 3,431
Note 4 Other noninterest revenue
Total $ 4,427 $ 2,675 $ 4,972
(a) Includes equity securities and equity derivatives. Investment banking fees
(b) Includes bonds and commercial paper, various types of interest rate derivatives (including
credit derivatives), as well as foreign exchange and commodities. Investment banking fees include advisory and equity and debt
underwriting fees. Advisory fees are recognized as revenue when
Trading assets and liabilities
related services are performed. Underwriting fees are recognized
The following table presents the fair value of Trading assets and as revenue when the Firm has rendered all services to the issuer
Trading liabilities for the dates indicated: and is entitled to collect the fee from the issuer, as long as there
are no other contingencies associated with the fee (e.g., not
December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002
contingent on the customer obtaining financing). Underwriting
Trading assets fees are presented net of syndicate expenses. In addition, the
Debt and equity instruments: Firm recognizes credit arrangement and syndication fees as rev-
U.S. government, federal agencies and enue after satisfying certain retention, timing and yield criteria.
municipal securities $ 62,381 $ 68,906
Certificates of deposit, bankers’ acceptances The following table presents the components of Investment
and commercial paper 5,233 4,545 banking fees:
Debt securities issued by non-U.S. governments 22,654 29,709
Corporate securities and other 78,852 62,039 Year ended December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002 2001
Total debt and equity instruments $ 169,120 $ 165,199 Underwriting:

Derivative receivables: Equity $ 699 $ 464 $ 525
Interest rate $ 60,176 $ 55,260 Debt 1,549 1,543 1,839
Foreign exchange 9,760 7,487 Total Underwriting 2,248 2,007 2,364
Equity 8,863 12,846 Advisory 642 756 1,248
Credit derivatives 3,025 5,511
Total $ 2,890 $ 2,763 $ 3,612
Commodity 1,927 1,998
Total derivative receivables $ 83,751 $ 83,102
Total trading assets $ 252,871 $ 248,301
Fees and commissions
Fees and commissions primarily include fees from investment

Trading liabilities management, custody and institutional trust services, deposit
Debt and equity instruments(a) $ 78,222 $ 66,864 accounts, brokerage services, loan commitments, standby letters
Derivative payables: of credit and financial guarantees, compensating balances,
Interest rate $ 49,189 $ 43,584 insurance products and other financial service–related products.
Foreign exchange 10,129 8,036 These fees are recognized over the period in which the related
Equity 8,203 10,644 service is provided. Also included are credit card fees, which pri-
Credit derivatives 2,672 3,055 marily include interchange income (transaction-processing fees),
Commodity 1,033 908 late fees, cash advance fees, annual and overlimit fees, and serv-
Total derivative payables $ 71,226 $ 66,227 icing fees earned in connection with securitization activities.
Total trading liabilities $ 149,448 $ 133,091 Credit card fees are recognized as billed, except for annual fees,
which are recognized over a 12-month period.
(a) Primarily represents securities sold, not yet purchased.

Details of Fees and commissions were as follows: Note 6 Postretirement employee benefit plans
The Firm’s defined benefit pension plans are accounted for in
Investment management and service fees $ 2,244 $ 2,322 $ 2,454 accordance with SFAS 87 and SFAS 88. Its postretirement med-
Custody and institutional trust service fees 1,601 1,529 1,611 ical and life insurance plans are accounted for in accordance
Credit card fees 2,971 2,869 2,108 with SFAS 106.
Brokerage commissions 1,181 1,139 1,130
Lending-related service fees 580 546 495 JPMorgan Chase uses a measurement date of December 31 for
Deposit service fees 1,146 1,128 1,023 its postretirement employee benefit plans. The fair value of plan
Other fees 929 854 834 assets is used to determine the expected return on plan assets
Total fees and commissions $ 10,652 $10,387 $ 9,655 for its U.S. and non-U.S. defined benefit pension plans. For the
U.S. postretirement benefit plan, the market-related value, which
Mortgage fees and related income recognizes changes in fair value over a five-year period, is used
to determine the expected return on plan assets. Unrecognized
Mortgage fees and related income for the years 2003, 2002, and
net actuarial gains and losses are amortized over the average
2001 amounted to $892 million, $988 million, and $386 million,
remaining service period of active plan participants, if required.
respectively. Mortgage fees and related income primarily includes
fees from mortgage origination and servicing activities, revenue The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization
generated through loan sales and securitization activities, includ- Act of 2003 (the “Act”) was signed into law on December 8,
ing related hedges, as well as the impact from hedging mortgage 2003. As permitted under FSP SFAS 106-1, JPMorgan Chase
servicing rights with derivatives (both those designated and not elected to defer accounting for certain of the effects of the Act
designated under SFAS 133). Mortgage servicing fees are recog- pending issuance of final guidance and transition rules. The Firm
nized over the period that the related service is provided net of is currently reviewing the Act and the potential impact on its U.S.
amortization. The valuation changes of mortgage servicing rights postretirement medical plan. Accordingly, the accumulated postre-
and the corresponding derivatives are adjusted through earnings tirement benefit obligation and net periodic benefit costs related
in the same period. Gains and losses on loan sales and securiti- to this plan do not reflect the effects of the Act. Once final guid-
zations are recognized in income upon sale or securitization. Net ance is issued, previously reported information is subject to change.
interest income and securities gains and losses related to these
mortgage banking activities are not included in Mortgage fees Defined benefit pension plans
and related income.
JPMorgan Chase has a qualified noncontributory U.S. defined
benefit pension plan that provides benefits to substantially
Note 5 Interest income and interest expense all U.S. employees. The U.S. plan employs a cash balance for-
mula, in the form of service and interest credits, to determine
Details of Interest income and expense were as follows:
the benefits to be provided at retirement, based on eligible
Year ended December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002 2001 compensation and years of service. Employees begin to accrue
plan benefits after completing one year of service, and benefits
Interest income
Loans $ 11,276 $ 12,057 $ 15,544 vest after five years of service. The Firm also offers benefits
Securities 3,542 3,367 3,647 through defined benefit pension plans to qualifying employees
Trading assets 6,592 6,798 7,390 in certain non-U.S. locations based on eligible compensation
Federal funds sold and securities and years of service.
purchased under resale agreements 1,497 2,061 3,805
Securities borrowed 323 698 1,343 It is JPMorgan Chase’s policy to fund its pension plans in
Deposits with banks 214 303 452 amounts sufficient to meet the requirements under applicable
Total interest income $ 23,444 $ 25,284 $ 32,181 employee benefit and local tax laws. In 2003, the Firm made
two cash contributions to its U.S. defined benefit pension plan:
Interest expense
$127 million on February 10 to fully fund the plan’s projected
Deposits $ 3,604 $ 5,253 $ 7,998
Short-term and other liabilities 5,899 7,038 11,098 benefit obligation as of December 31, 2002, and $200 million
Long-term debt 1,498 1,467 2,283 on December 29 to fully fund the plan’s projected benefit obli-
Beneficial interests issued by consolidated gation as of December 31, 2003. Additionally, the Firm made
variable interest entities 106 — — cash contributions totaling $87 million to fund fully the accumu-
Total interest expense $ 11,107 $ 13,758 $ 21,379 lated benefit obligations of certain non-U.S. defined benefit
pension plans as of December 31, 2003. Based on the current
Net interest income $ 12,337 $ 11,526 $ 10,802
Provision for credit losses 1,540 4,331 3,182 funded status of the U.S. and non-U.S. pension plans, the Firm
does not expect to make significant fundings in 2004.
Net interest income after
provision for credit losses $ 10,797 $ 7,195 $ 7,620

Postretirement medical and life insurance While the Firm owns the COLI policies, COLI proceeds (death
benefits, withdrawals and other distributions) may be used only
JPMorgan Chase offers postretirement medical and life to reimburse the Firm for its net postretirement benefit claim
insurance benefits to qualifying U.S. employees. These benefits payments and related administrative expenses. The U.K. postre-
vary with length of service and date of hire and provide for lim- tirement benefit plan is unfunded.
its on the Firm’s share of covered medical benefits. The medical
benefits are contributory, while the life insurance benefits are The following tables present the funded status and amounts
noncontributory. Postretirement medical benefits are also reported on the Consolidated balance sheet, the accumulated
offered to qualifying U.K. employees. benefit obligation and the components of net periodic benefit
costs reported in the Consolidated statement of income for the
JPMorgan Chase’s U.S. postretirement benefit obligation is Firm’s U.S. and non-U.S. defined benefit pension and postretire-
partially funded with corporate-owned life insurance (“COLI”) ment benefit plans.
purchased on the lives of eligible employees and retirees.
Defined benefit pension plans Postretirement

U.S. Non-U.S. benefit plans(a)
As of December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002
Change in benefit obligation

Benefit obligation at beginning of year $ (4,241) $ (4,007) $ (1,329) $ (1,100) $ (1,126) $ (1,056)
Benefits earned during the year (180) (174) (16) (16) (15) (12)
Interest cost on benefit obligations (262) (275) (74) (62) (73) (69)
Plan amendments (89) — (1) — — 10
Employee contributions — — (1) (1) (11) (14)
Actuarial gain (loss) (262) (226) (125) (92) (134) (50)
Benefits paid 386 377 55 47 113 99
Curtailment gain 15 64 — 22 (2) 27
Settlement gain — — — 6 — —
Special termination benefits — — (1) (3) — (57)
Foreign exchange impact and other — — (167) (130) (4) (4)
Benefit obligation at end of year $ (4,633) $ (4,241) $ (1,659) $ (1,329) $ (1,252) $ (1,126)
Change in plan assets

Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year $ 4,114 $ 4,048 $ 1,281 $ 1,058 $ 1,020 $ 1,089
Actual return on plan assets 811 (406) 133 (150) 154 (74)
Firm contributions 327 849 87 304 2 16
Settlement payments — — (12) (6) — —
Benefits paid (386) (377) (43) (47) (27) (11)
Foreign exchange impact and other — — 157 122 — —
Fair value of plan assets at end of year $ 4,866(b) $ 4,114(b) $ 1,603 $ 1,281 $ 1,149 $ 1,020
Reconciliation of funded status

Funded status $ 233 $ (127) $ (56) $ (48) $ (103) $ (106)
Unrecognized amounts:
Net transition asset — — (1) (1) — —
Prior service cost 137 56 5 4 8 10
Net actuarial (gain) loss 920 1,224 564 477 156 86
Prepaid (accrued) benefit cost reported in

Other assets (Accrued expenses), respectively $ 1,290 $ 1,153 $ 512(c) $ 432(c) $ 61 $ (10)
Accumulated benefit obligation $ (4,312) $ (3,949) $ (1,626) $ (1,295) NA NA
(a) Includes postretirement benefit obligation of $36 million and $38 million and postretirement benefit liability (included in Accrued expenses) of $54 million and $49 million at December 31, 2003 and 2002,
respectively, for the U.K. plan, which is unfunded.
(b) At December 31, 2003 and 2002, approximately $315 million and $295 million, respectively, of U.S. plan assets relate to surplus assets of group annuity contracts.
(c) At December 31, 2003 and 2002, Accrued expenses related to non-U.S. defined benefit pension plans that JPMorgan Chase elected not to prefund fully totaled $99 million and $81 million, respectively.

U.S. Non-U.S. benefit plans(a)
For the year ended December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002 2001 2003 2002 2001 2003 2002 2001
Components of net periodic benefit costs

Benefits earned during the year $ 180 $ 174 $ 202 $ 16 $ 16 $ 46 $ 15 $ 12 $ 16
Interest cost on benefit obligations 262 275 285 73 62 65 73 69 71
Expected return on plan assets (322) (358) (379) (83) (76) (78) (92) (98) (48)
Amortization of unrecognized amounts:
Prior service cost 6 7 10 — — — 1 2 —
Net actuarial (gain) loss 62 — (5) 36 6 (1) — (10) (12)
Curtailment (gain) loss(b) 2 15 — 8 (3) — 2 (8) —
Settlement gain — — — — (2) — — — —
Special termination benefits(b) — — — — 3 — — 57 —
Net periodic benefit costs reported in
Compensation expense $ 190(c) $ 113 $ 113 $ 50(c) $ 6(d) $ 32 $ (1)(e) $ 24 $ 27
(a) Includes net periodic postretirement benefit costs of $2 million in 2003, 2002 and 2001 for the U.K. plan.
(b) Reflects expense recognized in 2002 due to management-initiated and outsourcing-related employee terminations.
(c) Increase in net periodic benefit costs resulted from changes in actuarial assumptions and amortization of unrecognized losses.
(d) Decrease in net periodic benefit costs resulted from conversion of certain non-U.S. defined benefit pension plans to defined contribution plans.
(e) Decrease in net periodic benefit costs reflects nonrecurring costs in 2002.
JPMorgan Chase has a number of other defined benefit pension changing yields. Other asset-class returns are derived from their
plans (i.e., U.S. plans not subject to Title IV of the Employee relationship to equity and bond markets.
Retirement Income Security Act). The most significant of these
In the United Kingdom, which represents the most significant of
plans is the Excess Retirement Plan, pursuant to which certain
the non-U.S. pension plans, procedures similar to those in the
employees earn service credits on compensation amounts above
United States are used to develop the expected long-term rate of
the maximum stipulated by law. This plan is a nonqualified
return on pension plan assets, taking into consideration local
noncontributory U.S. pension plan with an unfunded liability
market conditions and the specific allocation of plan assets. The
at each of December 31, 2003 and 2002, in the amount of
expected long-term rate of return on U.K. plan assets is an average
$178 million. Compensation expense related to the Firm’s other
of projected long-term returns for each asset class, selected by ref-
defined benefit pension plans totaled $19 million in 2003,
erence to the yield on long-term U.K. government bonds and
$15 million in 2002 and $22 million in 2001.
AA-rated long-term corporate bonds, plus an equity risk premium
Plan assumptions above the risk-free rate.
JPMorgan Chase’s expected long-term rate of return for U.S. The expected long-term rate of return for the U.S. postretirement
defined benefit pension plan assets is a blended average of its medical and life insurance plans is computed using procedures
investment advisor’s projected long-term (10 years or more) similar to those used for the U.S. defined benefit pension plan.
returns for the various asset classes, weighted by the portfolio
The discount rate used in determining the benefit obligation under
allocation. Asset-class returns are developed using a forward-
the U.S. postretirement employee benefit plans is selected by refer-
looking building-block approach and are not based strictly on
ence to the year-end Moody’s corporate AA rate, as well as other
historical returns. Equity returns are generally developed as the
high-quality indices with similar duration to that of the respective
sum of inflation, expected real earnings growth and expected
plan’s benefit obligations. The discount rate for the U.K. postretire-
long-term dividend yield. Bond returns are generally developed
ment plans is selected by reference to the year-end iBoxx £
as the sum of inflation, real bond yield and risk spread (as
corporate AA 15-year-plus bond rate.
appropriate), adjusted for the expected effect on returns from
The following tables present the weighted-average annualized actuarial assumptions for the projected and accumulated benefit obliga-
tions, and the components of net periodic benefit costs for the Firm’s U.S. and non-U.S. defined benefit pension and postretirement
benefit plans, as of year-end.
U.S. Non-U.S.
For the year ended December 31, 2003 2002 2003 2002
Weighted-average assumptions used to determine benefit obligations

Discount rate 6.00% 6.50% 2.00-5.40% 1.50-5.60%
Rate of compensation increase 4.50 4.50 1.75-3.75 1.25-3.00

U.S. Non-U.S.
For the year ended December 31, 2003 2002 2001 2003 2002 2001
Weighted-average assumptions used to determine net periodic benefit costs

Discount rate 6.50% 7.25% 7.50-7.75% 1.50-5.60% 2.50-6.00% 2.75-6.25%
Expected long-term rate of return on plan assets:
Pension 8.00 9.25 9.00-9.50 2.70-6.50 3.25-7.25 3.25-8.00
Postretirement benefit 8.00 9.00 9.00-9.50 NA NA NA
Rate of compensation increase 4.50 4.50 3.00-4.50 1.25-3.00 2.00-4.00 2.00-4.00
The following tables present JPMorgan Chase’s assumed weighted-average medical benefits cost trend rate, which is used to measure the
expected cost of benefits at year-end, and the effect of a one-percentage-point change in the assumed medical benefits cost trend rate:
December 31, 2003 2002 2001
Health care cost trend rate assumed for next year 10% 9% 8%
Rate to which the cost trend rate is assumed to decline (the ultimate trend rate) 5 5 5
Year that the rate reaches the ultimate trend rate 2010 2008 2005
1-Percentage- 1-Percentage-
(in millions) point increase point decrease
Effect on total service and interest costs $ 4 $ (3)

Effect on postretirement benefit obligation 51 (44)
At December 31, 2003, the Firm reduced the discount rate used Investment strategy and asset allocation
to determine its U.S. benefit obligations to 6.00%. The Firm also
reduced the 2004 expected long-term rate of return on U.S. plan The investment policy for postretirement employee benefit plan
assets to 7.75% and 7.00%, respectively, for its pension and assets is to optimize the risk-return relationship as appropriate
other postretirement benefit expenses. The impact of the to the respective plan’s needs and goals, using a global portfolio
changes as of December 31, 2003, to the expected long-term of various asset classes diversified by market segment, economic
rate of return on plan assets and the discount rate is expected to sector and issuer. Specifically, the goal is to optimize the asset
increase 2004 U.S. pension and other postretirement benefit mix for future benefit obligations, while managing various risk
expenses by approximately $35 million. The impact of the factors and each plan’s investment return objectives. For exam-
changes to the expected long-term rate of return on plan assets ple, long-duration fixed income securities are included in the
and the discount rate on non-U.S. pension and other postretire- U.S. qualified pension plan’s asset allocation, in recognition of
ment benefit expenses is not expected to be material. its long-duration obligations. Plan assets are managed by a com-
bination of internal and external investment managers and, on a
JPMorgan Chase’s U.S. pension and other postretirement benefit quarterly basis, are rebalanced to target, to the extent economi-
expenses are most sensitive to the expected long-term rate of cally practical.
return on plan assets. With all other assumptions held constant, a
25–basis point decline in the expected long-term rate of return The Firm’s U.S. pension plan assets are held in various trusts and
on U.S. plan assets would result in an increase of approximately are invested in well diversified portfolios of equity (including
$15 million in 2004 U.S. pension and other postretirement bene- U.S. large and small capitalization and international equities),
fit expenses. Additionally, a 25–basis point decline in the discount fixed income (including corporate and government bonds),
rate for the U.S. plans would result in an increase in 2004 U.S. Treasury inflation-indexed and high-yield securities, cash equiva-
pension and other postretirement benefit expenses of approxima- lents and other securities. Non-U.S. pension plan assets are
tely $12 million and an increase in the related benefit obligation similarly invested in well-diversified portfolios of equity, fixed
of approximately $143 million. The impact of a decline in the income and other securities. Assets of the Firm’s COLI policies,
discount rate related to the U.S. pension plan would be signifi- which are used to fund partially the U.S. postretirement benefit
cantly offset by the effect of a similar reduction in the assumed plan, are held in separate accounts with an insurance company
interest rate used for crediting participant balances. and are invested in equity and fixed income index funds. Assets
used to fund the Firm’s U.S. and non-U.S. defined benefit pen-
sion and postretirement benefit plans do not include JPMorgan
Chase common stock, except in connection with investments in
third-party stock-index funds.

The following table presents the weighted-average asset allocation at December 31 and the respective target allocation by asset
category for the Firm’s U.S. and non-U.S. defined benefit pension and postretirement benefit plans:
U.S. Non-U.S.(a)(b) benefit plans(c)
Target % of plan assets Target % of plan assets Target % of plan assets
Allocation 2003 2002 Allocation 2003 2002 Allocation 2003 2002
Asset Class
Debt securities 40% 41% 45% 74% 76% 51% 50% 50% 50%
Equity securities 50 53 50 26 24 49 50 50 50
Real estate 5 5 4 — — — — — —
Other 5 1 1 — — — — — —
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
(a) Primarily represents the U.K. plan which accounts for approximately 90% of the non-U.S. plan assets.
(b) The target allocation for U.K. plan assets was revised in 2003 to reduce the volatility of funding levels, given that the plan is now closed to future participants.
(c) Represents the U.S. postretirement benefit plan only, as the U.K. plan is unfunded.
Estimated future benefit payments the prospective transition method, all new awards granted to
employees on or after January 1, 2003, are accounted for under
The following table presents benefit payments expected to be SFAS 123. In connection with the adoption of SFAS 123, the
paid, which include the effect of expected future service for the Firm decided to provide key employees, excluding members of
years indicated. The postretirement medical and life insurance the Executive Committee, with the ability to elect to receive the
payments are net of expected retiree contributions. value of their stock-based compensation awards as stock
Non- U.S. and U.K. options, restricted stock or any combination thereof. The net
U.S. Pension U.S. Pension Postretirement effect was to reduce net income by $0.08 per share in 2003.
(in millions) Benefits Benefits Benefits
Awards that were outstanding as of December 31, 2002, if not
2004 $ 326 $ 52 $ 108 subsequently modified, continue to be accounted for under
2005 340 53 111 APB 25. Through December 31, 2002, JPMorgan Chase
2006 358 55 114 accounted for its employee stock-based compensation plans
2007 377 57 117 under the intrinsic-value method in accordance with APB 25.
2008 399 61 118 Under this method, no expense is recognized for stock options
Years 2009-2013 2,177 351 603
granted at the stock price on the grant date, since such options
have no intrinsic value. Compensation expense for restricted
Defined contribution plans
stock and restricted stock units (“RSUs”) is measured based on
JPMorgan Chase offers several defined contribution plans in the number of shares granted and the stock price at the grant
the U.S. and certain non-U.S. locations. The most significant of date and is recognized over the required service period.
these plans is the JPMorgan Chase 401(k) Savings Plan, covering
Key employee stock-based awards
substantially all U.S. employees. This plan allows employees to
make pre-tax contributions to tax-deferred investment JPMorgan Chase grants long-term stock-based incentive awards
portfolios. For most employees, the Firm matches employee to certain key employees under two plans (the “LTI Plans”). The
contributions dollar-for-dollar up to a certain percentage of eligi- Long-Term Incentive Plan, approved by shareholders in May
ble compensation per pay period, subject to plan and legal 2000, provides for grants of stock options, stock appreciation
limits. Employees begin to receive matching contributions after rights (“SARs”), restricted stock and RSU awards, and the Stock
completing one year of service; benefits vest after three years of Option Plan, a nonshareholder-approved plan, provides for
service. The Firm’s defined contribution plans are administered in grants of stock options and SARs. Through December 31, 2003,
accordance with applicable local laws and regulations. SARs have not been granted under either of these plans.
Compensation expense related to these plans totaled $240 mil-
lion in 2003, $251 million in 2002 and $208 million in 2001. Under the LTI Plans, stock options are granted with an exercise
price equal to JPMorgan Chase’s common stock price on the
Note 7 Employee stock-based incentives grant date. Generally, options cannot be exercised until at least
one year after the grant date and become exercisable over vari-
Effective January 1, 2003, JPMorgan Chase adopted SFAS 123 ous periods as determined at the time of the grant. Options
using the prospective transition method. SFAS 123 requires all generally expire 10 years after the grant date. In January 2001,
stock-based compensation awards, including stock options, to JPMorgan Chase granted 82.2 million options under the LTI
be accounted for at fair value. Fair value is based on a Black- Plans, pursuant to a growth performance incentive program
Scholes valuation model, with compensation expense (“GPIP”). Forfeitures of GPIP options aggregated 23.7 million
recognized in earnings over the required service period. Under shares through December 31, 2003.

The following table presents a summary of JPMorgan Chase’s option activity under the LTI Plans during the last three years:
Year ended December 31, 2003 2002 2001
Number of Weighted-average Number of Weighted-average Number of Weighted-average
(Options in thousands) options exercise price options exercise price options exercise price
Options outstanding, January 1 298,731 $ 40.84 272,304 $ 41.23 175,232 $ 31.52

Granted 26,751 22.15 53,230 36.41 136,863 51.07
Exercised (14,574) 17.47 (9,285) 16.85 (28,954) 25.69
Canceled (16,882) 47.57 (17,518) 45.59 (10,837) 49.94
Options outstanding, December 31 294,026 $ 39.88 298,731 $ 40.84 272,304 $ 41.23
Options exercisable, December 31 176,163 $ 37.88 144,421 $ 34.91 123,045 $ 30.34
The following table details the distribution of options outstanding under the LTI Plans at December 31, 2003:
Options outstanding Options exercisable
(Options in thousands) Options Weighted-average Weighted-average remaining Options Weighted-average
Range of exercise prices outstanding exercise price contractual life (in years) exercisable exercise price
$3.41 – $20.00 16,409 $16.63 1.3 16,387 $ 16.63

$20.01 – $35.00 55,671 25.23 5.9 28,664 27.75
$35.01 – $50.00 119,717 40.15 5.9 101,858 40.29
$50.01 – $65.58 102,229 51.27 6.7 29,254 51.32
Total 294,026 $39.88 5.9 176,163 $ 37.88
Restricted stock and RSUs are granted by JPMorgan Chase reversed. The target stock prices for these awards ranged from
under the LTI Plans at no cost to the recipient. Restricted stock/ $73.33 to $85.00. These awards will be forfeited in 2004
RSUs are subject to forfeiture until certain restrictions have through 2006 if the target stock prices are not achieved.
lapsed, including continued employment for a specified period.
A portion of certain employees’ cash incentive compensation
The recipient of a share of restricted stock is entitled to voting
that exceeded specified levels was awarded in restricted stock/
rights and dividends on the common stock. An RSU entitles the
RSU awards or other deferred investments (the “required defer-
recipient to receive a share of common stock after the applicable
ral plan”) issued under the LTI Plans. These restricted stock/RSU
restrictions lapse; the recipient is entitled to receive cash payments
and other deferred awards vest based solely on continued employ-
equivalent to dividends on the underlying common stock during
ment. During 2001, 137,500 of such restricted stock/units were
the period the RSU is outstanding.
granted. The required deferral plan was discontinued in 2002.
During 2003, 43.5 million restricted stock/RSU awards were
granted by JPMorgan Chase under the LTI Plans. In 2002 and Broad-based employee stock options
2001, 24.0 million and 25.9 million awards, respectively, were
In January 2003, JPMorgan Chase granted 12.8 million
granted under these plans. All these awards are payable solely
options to all eligible full-time (150 options each) and part-time
in stock. The 2001 grants included 1.3 million restricted stock/
(75 options each) employees under the Value Sharing Plan, a
RSU awards that are forfeitable if certain target prices are not
nonshareholder-approved plan. The exercise price is equal to
achieved. The vesting of these awards is conditioned upon cer-
JPMorgan Chase’s common stock price on the grant date. The
tain service requirements being met and JPMorgan Chase’s
options become exercisable over various periods and generally
common stock price reaching and sustaining target prices
expire 10 years after the grant date.
within a five-year performance period. During 2002, it was
determined that it was no longer probable that the target stock The following table presents a summary of JPMorgan Chase’s
prices related to forfeitable awards granted in 1999, 2000 and broad-based employee stock option plan activity during the
2001 would be achieved within their respective performance past three years:
periods, and accordingly, previously accrued expenses were
Year ended December 31, 2003 2002 2001
Number of Weighted-average Number of Weighted-average Number of Weighted-average
(Options in thousands) options exercise price options exercise price options exercise price
Options outstanding, January 1 113,155 $ 40.62 87,393 $ 41.86 67,237 $ 38.17

Granted 12,846 21.87 32,550 36.85 26,042 51.22
Exercised (2,007) 13.67 (674) 15.01 (2,267) 27.65
Canceled (6,172) 37.80 (6,114) 41.14 (3,619) 49.54
Options outstanding, December 31 117,822 $ 39.11 113,155 $ 40.62 87,393 $ 41.86
Options exercisable, December 31 36,396 $ 32.88 38,864 $ 31.95 40,390 $ 31.76

The following table details the distribution of broad-based employee stock options outstanding at December 31, 2003:
Options outstanding Options exercisable
(Options in thousands) Options Weighted-average Weighted-average remaining Options Weighted-average
Range of exercise prices outstanding exercise price contractual life (in years) exercisable exercise price
$10.26 – $20.00 5,317 $13.01 0.4 5,317 $ 13.01

$20.01 – $35.00 19,155 24.66 6.6 7,725 28.79
$35.01 – $50.00 71,048 41.16 6.3 23,354 38.76
$50.01 – $65.58 22,302 51.22 7.1 — —
Total 117,822 $39.11 6.2 36,396 $ 32.88
Comparison of the fair and The following table presents JPMorgan Chase’s weighted-average
intrinsic value measurement methods grant-date fair values for the employee stock-based compensation
awards granted, and the assumptions used to value stock options
Pre-tax employee stock-based compensation expense related to under a Black-Scholes valuation model:
these plans totaled $919 million in 2003 (which includes the
$266 million impact of adopting SFAS 123), $590 million in Year ended December 31, 2003 2002 2001
2002 and $798 million in 2001. Compensation expense for 2002
Weighted-average grant-date fair value
included the reversal of previously accrued expense of $120 mil- Stock options:
lion related to forfeitable key employee awards granted in 1999, Key employee $ 5.60 $ 11.57 $ 18.39
2000 and 2001, as discussed above. Broad-based employee 4.98 9.49 14.60
Restricted stock and RSUs
The following table presents net income and basic and diluted (all payable solely in stock) 22.03 36.28 49.21
earnings per share as reported, and as if all outstanding awards Weighted-average annualized stock
were accounted for at fair value. The lower expense from applying option valuation assumptions
SFAS 123 in 2003 compared with 2002 resulted from a decrease Risk-free interest rate 3.19% 4.61% 5.08%
in the number of outstanding stock-based compensation awards, Expected dividend yield(a) 5.99 3.72 2.51
a lower common stock price, lower Black-Scholes option fair Expected common stock price volatility 44 39 37
Assumed weighted-average expected
values and longer vesting periods. The increase in compensation
life of stock options (in years)
expense after applying SFAS 123 in 2002 compared with 2001
Key employee 6.8 6.8 6.8
reflects a higher level of options granted in prior years that were Broad-based employee 3.8 3.8 3.8
not fully vested. This increase is partially offset by a decline in
(a) Based primarily on historical data at the grant date.
the weighted-average grant-date fair value of options granted
in 2002.
Note 8 Noninterest expense
(in millions, except per share data) 2003 2002 2001 Merger and restructuring costs
Net income as reported $ 6,719 $ 1,663 $ 1,694 Merger and restructuring costs associated with various programs
Add: Employee stock-based compensation
announced prior to January 1, 2002, were reflected in the Merger
expense originally included
and restructuring costs caption of the Consolidated statement
in reported net income, net of tax 551 354 479
Deduct: Employee stock-based of income and had been incurred as of December 31, 2002.
compensation expense determined Additionally, all previously recorded liabilities for merger charges
under the fair value method had been fully utilized as of year-end 2002: $1.25 billion in con-
for all awards, net of tax (863) (1,232) (1,101) nection with the merger of J.P. Morgan and Chase, and $300
Pro Forma net income $ 6,407 $ 785 $ 1,072 million in connection with the right-sizing of employee levels
beyond that planned at the time of the merger.
Earnings per share:
Basic: As reported $ 3.32 $ 0.81 $ 0.83 Restructuring costs associated with programs announced after
Pro Forma 3.16 0.37 0.51 January 1, 2002, are reflected in the related expense category of
Diluted: As reported $ 3.24 $ 0.80 $ 0.80
Pro Forma 3.09 0.37 0.50

the Consolidated statement of income. A summary of such Note 9 Securities

costs, by expense category and segment, are shown in the
following table for 2003 and 2002. Securities are classified as Available-for-sale (“AFS”), Held-to-
maturity (“HTM”) or Trading. Trading securities are discussed in
Year ended December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002
Note 3 on pages 87–88. Securities are classified as AFS when, in
Expense category management’s judgment, they may be sold in response to or in
Compensation $ 294 $ 746 anticipation of changes in market conditions. AFS securities are
Occupancy 270 22(b)
carried at fair value on the Consolidated balance sheet.
Technology and communications 47 30
Unrealized gains and losses after SFAS 133 valuation adjustments
Other 19 92
are reported as net increases or decreases to Accumulated other
Total (a) $ 630 $ 890 comprehensive income (loss). Impairment is evaluated consider-
ing numerous factors, and their relative significance varies from
Segment
Investment Bank $ 347 $ 587
case to case. Factors considered in the analysis include the
Treasury & Securities Services 61 17 length of time and extent to which the market value has been
Investment Management & Private Banking 44 47 less than cost; the financial condition and near-term prospects
JPMorgan Partners 2 — of the issuer; and the intent and ability to retain the security in
Chase Financial Services 95 99 order to allow for an anticipated recovery in market value. If,
Support Units and Corporate 81 140 based on the analysis, it is determined that the impairment is
Total (a) $ 630 $ 890 other-than-temporary, the security is written down and a loss is
(a) With the exception of occupancy-related write-offs, all of the costs in the table required the
recognized. The specific identification method is used to deter-
expenditure of cash. mine realized gains and losses on AFS securities, which are
(b) Excludes a $98 million charge for unoccupied excess real estate in 2002.
included in Securities gains (losses) on the Consolidated statement
Other expense of income. Securities that the Firm has the positive intent and
ability to hold to maturity are classified as HTM and are carried
Details of Other expense were as follows: at amortized cost on the Consolidated balance sheet.
The following table presents realized gains and losses from AFS
Other expense securities:
Professional services $ 1,368 $ 1,303 $ 1,139
Outside services 1,187 994 888 Year ended December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002 2001
Marketing 710 689 601
Realized gains $2,123 $ 1,904 $ 1,438
Travel and entertainment 422 411 453
Realized losses (677) (341) (572)
Amortization of intangibles 294 323 729
All other 1,156 1,391 1,440 Net realized gains (losses) $1,446 $ 1,563 $ 866
Total other expense $ 5,137 $ 5,111 $ 5,250
The amortized cost and estimated fair value of AFS and HTM securities were as follows for the dates indicated:
2003 2002
Gross Gross Gross Gross
Amortized unrealized unrealized Fair Amortized unrealized unrealized Fair
December 31, (in millions) cost gains losses value cost gains losses value
Available-for-sale securities
U.S. government and federal agencies/corporations
obligations:
Mortgage-backed securities $ 32,248 $ 101 $ 417 $ 31,932 $ 40,148 $ 449 $ 141 $ 40,456
Collateralized mortgage obligations 1,825 3 — 1,828 3,271 63 21 3,313
U.S. treasuries 11,617 15 168 11,464 22,870 531 24 23,377
Obligations of state and political subdivisions 2,841 171 52 2,960 1,744 145 14 1,875
Debt securities issued by non-U.S. governments 7,232 47 41 7,238 11,873 58 19 11,912
Corporate debt securities 818 23 8 833 870 20 8 882
Equity securities 1,393 24 11 1,406 1,198 16 18 1,196
Other, primarily asset-backed securities (a) 2,448 61 102 2,407 978 113 70 1,021
Total available-for-sale securities $ 60,422 $ 445 $ 799 $ 60,068 $ 82,952 $ 1,395 $ 315 $ 84,032
Held-to-maturity securities
Total held-to-maturity securities (b) $ 176 $ 10 $ — $ 186 $ 431 $ 24 $ — $ 455
(a) Includes CMOs of private issuers, which generally have underlying collateral consisting of obligations of U.S. government and federal agencies and corporations.
(b) Consists primarily of mortgage-backed securities.

Included in the $799 million of unrealized losses on available- to the illiquid secondary market for these securities and is con-
for-sale securities at December 31, 2003 is $46 million of sidered temporary, as the Firm has the intent and ability to hold
unrealized losses that have existed for a period greater than these investments with the expectation that the unrealized mar-
12 months. These losses primarily relate to $1.5 billion of asset- ket value loss will be recovered.
backed securities held by commercial paper conduits that were
In calculating the effective yield for mortgage-backed securities
consolidated by the Firm in accordance with FIN 46 on July 1,
(“MBS”) and collateralized mortgage obligations (“CMO”),
2003. The securities held by the conduits are of high credit
JPMorgan Chase actively monitors the likelihood of principal
quality, predominantly rated AA or better. Upon adoption of FIN
prepayment through its portfolio management function.
46, the securities were measured at the amounts at which such
Management regularly performs simulation testing to determine
interests would have been carried had the Firm consolidated the
the impact that market conditions would have on its MBS and
conduits when it first met the conditions to be considered the
CMO portfolios. MBSs and CMOs that management believes
primary beneficiary; this resulted in an initial transition adjust-
have high prepayment risk are included in the AFS portfolio
ment to Other comprehensive income as described in Note 14
and are reported at fair value.
on page 106. The overall depreciation in fair value is attributable
The following table presents the amortized cost, estimated fair value and average yield at December 31, 2003, of JPMorgan Chase’s
AFS and HTM securities by contractual maturity:
Available-for-sale securities Held-to-maturity securities

Maturity schedule of securities Amortized Fair Average Amortized Fair Average
(a)
December 31, 2003 (in millions) cost value yield cost value yield(a)
Due in one year or less $ 4,899 $ 4,900 1.89% $ — $ — —%

Due after one year through five years 9,212 9,175 3.33 — — —
Due after five years through 10 years 7,839 7,815 4.20 2 2 7.32
Due after 10 years(b) 38,472 38,178 4.83 174 184 6.91
Total securities $ 60,422 $ 60,068 4.28% $ 176 $ 186 6.92%
(a) The average yield is based on amortized cost balances at year-end. Yields are derived by dividing interest income (including the effect of related derivatives on AFS securities and the amortization of
premiums and accretion of discounts) by total amortized cost. Taxable-equivalent yields are used where applicable.
(b) Includes securities with no stated maturity. Substantially all of JPMorgan Chase’s MBSs and CMOs are due in 10 years or more based on contractual maturity. The estimated duration, which reflects
anticipated future prepayments based on a consensus of dealers in the market, is approximately five years for MBSs and CMOs.

Note 10 Securities financing activities JPMorgan Chase pledges certain financial instruments it owns to
collateralize repurchase agreements and other securities financ-
JPMorgan Chase enters into resale agreements, repurchase ings. Pledged securities that can be sold or repledged by the
agreements, securities borrowed transactions and securities secured party are identified as financial instruments owned
loaned transactions primarily to finance the Firm’s inventory (pledged to various parties) on the Consolidated balance sheet.
positions, acquire securities to cover short positions and settle
At December 31, 2003, the Firm had received securities as col-
other securities obligations. The Firm also enters into these
lateral that can be repledged, delivered or otherwise used with a
transactions to accommodate customers’ needs.
fair value of approximately $210 billion. This collateral was gen-
Securities purchased under resale agreements (“resale erally obtained under resale or securities-borrowing agreements.
agreements”) and securities sold under repurchase agreements Of these securities, approximately $197 billion was repledged,
(“repurchase agreements”) are generally treated as collateralized delivered or otherwise used, generally as collateral under repur-
financing transactions and are carried on the Consolidated bal- chase agreements, securities-lending agreements or to cover
ance sheet at the amounts the securities will be subsequently short sales.
sold or repurchased, plus accrued interest. Where appropriate,
resale and repurchase agreements with the same counterparty
Note 11 Loans
are reported on a net basis in accordance with FIN 41. Loans are reported at the principal amount outstanding, net of
JPMorgan Chase takes possession of securities purchased under the allowance for loan losses, unearned income and any net
resale agreements. On a daily basis, JPMorgan Chase monitors deferred loan fees. Loans held for sale are carried at the lower
the market value of the underlying collateral received from its of aggregate cost or fair value. Loans are classified as “trading”
counterparties, consisting primarily of U.S. and non-U.S. govern- for secondary market trading activities where positions are
ment and agency securities, and requests additional collateral bought and sold to make profits from short-term movements
from its counterparties when necessary. in price. Loans held for trading purposes are included in Trading
Similar transactions that do not meet the SFAS 140 definition assets and are carried at fair value, with the gains and losses
of a repurchase agreement are accounted for as “buys” and included in Trading revenue. Interest income is recognized using
“sells” rather than financing transactions. These transactions are the interest method, or on a basis approximating a level rate of
accounted for as a purchase (sale) of the underlying securities return over the term of the loan.
with a forward obligation to sell (purchase) the securities. The Nonaccrual loans are those on which the accrual of interest
forward purchase (sale) obligation, a derivative, is recorded on is discontinued. Loans (other than certain consumer loans
the Consolidated balance sheet at its fair value, with changes in discussed below) are placed on nonaccrual status immediately
fair value recorded in Trading revenue. Notional amounts of if, in the opinion of management, full payment of principal or
these transactions accounted for as purchases under SFAS 140 interest is in doubt, or when principal or interest is 90 days or
were $15 billion and $8 billion at December 31, 2003 and more past due and collateral, if any, is insufficient to cover prin-
2002, respectively. Notional amounts of these transactions cipal and interest. Interest accrued but not collected at the date
accounted for as sales under SFAS 140 were $8 billion and a loan is placed on nonaccrual status is reversed against Interest
$13 billion at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. Based income. In addition, the amortization of net deferred loan fees
on the short-term duration of these contracts, the unrealized is suspended. Interest income on nonaccrual loans is recognized
gain or loss is insignificant. only to the extent it is received in cash. However, where there
Securities borrowed and securities lent are recorded at the is doubt regarding the ultimate collectibility of loan principal,
amount of cash collateral advanced or received. Securities bor- all cash thereafter received is applied to reduce the carrying
rowed consist primarily of government and equity securities. value of the loan. Loans are restored to accrual status only when
JPMorgan Chase monitors the market value of the securities interest and principal payments are brought current and future
borrowed and lent on a daily basis and calls for additional col- payments are reasonably assured.
lateral when appropriate. Fees received or paid are recorded in Consumer loans are generally charged to the Allowance for loan
Interest income or Interest expense. losses upon reaching specified stages of delinquency, in accor-
December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002 dance with the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
(“FFIEC”) policy. For example, credit card loans are charged off
Securities purchased under resale agreements $ 62,801 $ 57,645
at the earlier of 180 days past due or within 60 days from
Securities borrowed 41,834 34,143
receiving notification of the filing of bankruptcy. Residential
Securities sold under repurchase agreements $ 105,409 $ 161,394
mortgage products are generally charged off to net realizable
Securities loaned 2,461 1,661
value at 180 days past due. Other consumer products are gener-
ally charged off (to net realizable value if collateralized) at 120
days past due. Accrued interest on residential mortgage products,
automobile financings and certain other consumer loans are
accounted for in accordance with the nonaccrual loan policy

discussed above. Accrued interest on all other loans is generally Other assets, only when JPMorgan Chase has taken physical
reversed against interest income when the consumer loan is possession of the collateral. This is regardless of whether formal
charged off. foreclosure proceedings have taken place.
A collateralized loan is considered an in-substance foreclosure The composition of the loan portfolio at each of the dates indi-
and is reclassified to assets acquired in loan satisfactions, within cated was as follows:
2003 2002
December 31, (in millions) U.S. Non-U.S. Total U.S. Non-U.S. Total
Commercial loans:
Commercial and industrial $ 43,631 $ 24,618 $ 68,249 $ 49,205 $ 31,446 $ 80,651
Commercial real estate:
Commercial mortgage 3,182 — 3,182 3,176 2 3,178
Construction 589 79 668 516 379 895
Financial institutions 4,622 5,671 10,293 3,770 2,438 6,208
Non-U.S. governments — 705 705 — 616 616
Total commercial loans 52,024 31,073 83,097(d) 56,667 34,881 91,548
Consumer loans:
1–4 family residential mortgages:
First liens 54,460 — 54,460 49,357 12 49,369
Home equity loans 19,252 — 19,252 14,643 — 14,643
Credit card(a) 16,793 — 16,793 19,677 — 19,677
Automobile financings 38,695 — 38,695 33,615 — 33,615
Other consumer 7,193 28 7,221 7,395 117 7,512
Total consumer loans 136,393 28 136,421 124,687 129 124,816
Total loans(b)(c) $ 188,417 $ 31,101 $ 219,518 $ 181,354 $ 35,010 $ 216,364
(a) At December 31, 2003, excludes $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.
(b) Loans are presented net of unearned income of $1.29 billion and $1.89 billion at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
(c) Includes loans held for sale (principally mortgage-related loans) of $20.8 billion and $25.0 billion at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
(d) Includes $5.8 billion of loans held by VIEs consolidated under FIN 46.
The following table reflects information about the Firm’s loans held for sale, principally mortgage-related:
Net gains on sales of loans held for sale $ 933 $ 754 $ 581
Lower of cost or market adjustments 26 (36) (177)
Impaired loans The table below sets forth information about JPMorgan Chase’s
impaired loans. The Firm primarily uses the discounted cash flow
JPMorgan Chase accounts for and discloses nonaccrual commer- method for valuing impaired loans:
cial loans as impaired loans and recognizes their interest income
as discussed previously for nonaccrual loans. The Firm excludes December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002
from impaired loans its small-balance, homogeneous consumer Impaired loans with an allowance $ 1,597 $ 3,250
loans; loans carried at fair value or the lower of cost or fair Impaired loans without an allowance(a) 406 412
value; debt securities; and leases.
Total impaired loans $ 2,003 $ 3,662
Allowance for impaired loans under SFAS 114(b) $ 595 $ 1,106
Average balance of impaired loans during the year 2,969 2,805
Interest income recognized on impaired loans
during the year 4 14
(a) When the discounted cash flows, collateral value or market price equals or exceeds the
carrying value of the loan, then the loan does not require an allowance under SFAS 114.
(b) The allowance for impaired loans under SFAS 114 is included in JPMorgan Chase’s
allowance for loan losses.

Note 12 Allowance for credit losses JPMorgan Chase maintains an Allowance for credit losses
as follows:
JPMorgan Chase’s Allowance for loan losses is intended to cover Reported in:
probable credit losses for which either the asset is not specifically Allowance for
credit losses on: Balance sheet Income statement
identified or the size of the loss has not been fully determined.
Within the allowance, there are specific and expected loss com- Loans Allowance for loan losses Provision for credit losses
ponents and a residual component. Lending-related
commitments Other liabilities Provision for credit losses
The specific loss component covers those commercial loans
deemed by the Firm to be criticized. The Firm internally catego-
rizes its criticized commercial loans into three groups: doubtful, The table below summarizes the changes in the Allowance for
substandard and special-mention. loan losses:
Criticized nonperforming commercial loans (excluding leases) are
considered to be impaired loans. The allowance for impaired Allowance for loan losses at January 1 $ 5,350 $ 4,524 $ 3,665
loans is computed using the methodology under SFAS 114. An Provision for loan losses 1,579 4,039 3,185
allowance is established when the discounted cash flows (or col- Charge-offs (2,818) (4,060) (2,582)
lateral value or observable market price) of an impaired loan are Recoveries 546 384 247
lower than the carrying value of that loan. To compute the spe- Net charge-offs (2,272) (3,676) (2,335)
cific loss component of the allowance, larger impaired loans are Transfer to Other assets(a) (138) — —
evaluated individually, and smaller impaired loans are evaluated Allowance related to purchased portfolios — 460 —
as a pool using historical loss experience for the respective class Other 4 3 9
of assets. Criticized but performing loans also are evaluated as a Allowance for loan losses at December 31 $ 4,523 $ 5,350 $ 4,524
pool, using historical loss rates. (a) Includes $138 million related to the transfer of the allowance for accrued interest and fees on
securitized credit card loans.
The expected loss component covers performing commercial
loans (except criticized loans) and consumer loans. Expected The table below summarizes the changes in the Allowance for
losses are the product of default probability and loss severity. lending-related commitments:
These factors are differentiated by risk rating and maturity for Year ended December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002 2001
commercial loans. The expected loss estimates for each
consumer loan portfolio are based primarily on the Firm’s histori- Allowance for lending-related commitments
cal loss experience for the applicable product portfolio. at January 1 $ 363 $ 282 $ 283
Provision for lending-related commitments (39) 292 (3)
Finally, a residual component is maintained to cover uncertain- Charge-offs — (212) —
ties that could affect management’s estimate of probable losses. Recoveries — — 3
The residual component of the allowance reflects the margin of Net charge-offs — (212) 3
imprecision in the underlying assumptions used for estimating Other — 1 (1)
specific losses and expected losses. It is anticipated that the
Allowance for lending-related
residual component of the allowance will range between 10% commitments at December 31 $ 324 $ 363 $ 282
and 20% of the total Allowance for loan losses.
JPMorgan Chase’s Risk Management Committee reviews, at least Note 13 Loan securitizations
quarterly, the Allowance for credit losses relative to the risk pro-
file of the Firm’s credit portfolio and current economic conditions. JPMorgan Chase securitizes, sells and services various consumer
The allowance is adjusted based on that review if, in manage- loans originated by Chase Financial Services (residential
ment’s judgment, changes are warranted. As of December 31, mortgage, credit card and automobile loans), as well as certain
2003, JPMorgan Chase deemed the allowance to be appropriate commercial loans (primarily real estate) originated by the
(i.e., sufficient to absorb losses that are inherent in the portfolio Investment Bank. Interests in the sold and securitized loans may
but not yet identifiable). be retained as described below.
To provide for the risk of loss inherent in the credit extension JPMorgan Chase records a loan securitization as a sale when
process, management also computes specific and expected loss the transferred loans are legally isolated from the Firm’s creditors
components, as well as a residual component, for lending- and the accounting criteria for a sale are met. Gains or losses
related commitments using a methodology similar to that used recorded on loan securitizations depend, in part, on the carrying
for the loan portfolio. amount of the loans sold and are allocated between the loans
sold and the retained interests, based on their relative fair values
at the date of sale. Since quoted market prices are generally not

available, the Firm usually estimates fair value of these retained Interests in the securitized loans are generally retained by the
interests by determining the present value of future expected cash Firm in the form of senior or subordinated interest-only strips,
flows using modeling techniques. Such models incorporate man- subordinated tranches, escrow accounts and servicing rights,
agement’s best estimates of key variables, such as expected credit and they are primarily recorded in Other assets. In addition,
losses, prepayment speeds and discount rates appropriate for the credit card securitization trusts require the Firm to maintain a
risks involved. Gains on securitizations are reported in Other rev- minimum undivided interest in the trusts, representing the
enue. Retained interests that are subject to prepayment risk, such Firm’s interests in the receivables transferred to the trust that
that JPMorgan Chase may not recover substantially all of its invest- have not been securitized. These interests are not represented
ment, are recorded at fair value, with subsequent adjustments by security certificates. The Firm’s undivided interests are car-
reflected in Other comprehensive income or in earnings, if the fair ried at historical cost and are classified in Loans.
value of the retained interest has declined below its carrying amount
JPMorgan Chase retains servicing responsibilities for all
and such decline has been determined to be other-than-temporary.
residential mortgage, credit card and automobile loan securi-
JPMorgan Chase–sponsored securitizations utilize SPEs as part of tizations and for certain commercial loan securitizations it
the securitization process. These SPEs are structured to meet the establishes. The Firm receives annual servicing fees based on
definition of a QSPE (as discussed in Note 1); accordingly, the the securitized loan balance plus certain ancillary fees. It also
assets and liabilities of securitization-related SPEs are not reflected retains the right to service the residential mortgage loans it
in the Firm’s Consolidated balance sheet (except for retained inter- sells in connection with mortgage-backed securities transac-
ests as described below) but are included on the balance sheet of tions with the Government National Mortgage Association
the SPE purchasing the assets. Assets held by securitization-related (“GNMA”), Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”)
SPEs as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, were as follows: and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie
Mac”). For a discussion of mortgage servicing rights, see
December 31, (in billions) 2003 2002 Note 16 on pages 107-109 of this Annual Report.
Credit card receivables $ 42.6 $ 40.2 The following table summarizes new securitization transactions
Residential mortgage receivables 21.1 20.6 that were completed during 2003 and 2002; the resulting gains
Commercial loans 33.8 25.2 arising from such securitizations; certain cash flows received from
Automobile loans 6.5 4.5
such securitizations; and the key economic assumptions used in
Other receivables — 0.1
measuring the retained interests, as of the dates of such sales:
Total $ 104.0 $ 90.6
2003 2002
($ in millions) Mortgage Credit card Automobile Commercial Mortgage Credit card Automobile Commercial
Principal Securitized $ 13,270 $ 8,823 $ 4,510 $ 5,386 $ 7,220 $ 9,350 $ 3,392 $ 4,300
Pre-tax gains 168 44 13 107 214 45 6 53
Cash flow information:
Proceeds from securitizations $ 13,540 $ 8,823 $ 4,503 $ 5,493 $ 7,403 $ 9,350 $ 3,386 $ 4,284
Servicing fees collected 20 79 15 2 15 73 20 —
Other cash flows received 2 216 12 8 11 211 27 2
Proceeds from collections reinvested in
revolving securitizations — 58,199 — — — 44,645 — 334
Key assumptions (rates per annum):

Prepayment rate(a) 10.1-36.2% CPR 8.1-16.5% 1.52-1.57% 50.0% 10.1-25.0% CPR 14.6-14.9% 1.51-1.52% NA(b)
WAC/WAM WAC/WAM
Weighted-average life 2.0-4.6 years 7-12 months 1.7-1.8 years 1.3-5.2 years 3.0-7.7 years 7 months 1.8 years 7.3 years
Expected credit losses 0.0-2.5%(c) 5.5-8.0% 0.5-0.6% NA(d) 0-1.0%(c) 5.4-5.9% 0.5% NA(d)
Discount rate 13.0-30.0% 12.0% 3.9-4.5% 1.0-5.0% 15.0-30.0% 5.1-5.9% 5.7-5.9% 8.8%
(a) CPR: Constant prepayment rate; WAC/WAM: Weighted-average coupon/weighted-average maturity.
(b) Not applicable since these retained interests are not subject to prepayment risk.
(c) Expected credit losses for prime mortgage securitizations are minimal and are incorporated into other assumptions.
(d) Not applicable due to collateral coverage on loans in commercial securitizations.

In addition, the Firm sold residential mortgage loans totaling these amounts were $510 million and $94 million for credit card and
$123 billion and $62.2 billion during 2003 and 2002, automobile securitizations, respectively.
respectively, primarily as GNMA, FNMA and Freddie Mac
The table below summarizes other retained securitization interests,
mortgage-backed securities; these sales resulted in gains of
primarily subordinated or residual interests, which are carried at
$564 million in 2003 and $388 million in 2002.
fair value on the Firm’s Consolidated balance sheets.
At December 31, 2003 and 2002, the Firm had, with respect to
its credit card master trusts, $7.3 billion related to its undivided
interest, and $1.1 billion and $978 million, respectively, related Loans
to its subordinated interest in accrued interest and fees on the Residential mortgage $ 570(a) $ 684(a)
securitized receivables. Credit card 193(a) 92(a)
Automobile 151(a) 151(a)
The Firm also maintains escrow accounts up to predetermined Commercial 34 94
limits for some of its credit card and automobile securitizations, Total $ 948 $ 1,021
in the unlikely event of deficiencies in cash flows owed to
(a) Pre-tax unrealized gains (losses) recorded in Stockholders’ equity that relate to retained
investors. The amounts available in such escrow accounts are securitization interests totaled $155 million and $156 million, $11 million and $(1) million,
recorded in Other assets and, as of December 31, 2003, and $6 million and $21 million for residential mortgage, credit card and automobile, at
December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
amounted to $456 million and $137 million for credit card and
automobile securitizations, respectively; as of December 31, 2002,
The table below outlines the key economic assumptions and the sensitivity of fair values at December 31, 2003, of the remaining retained
interests to immediate 10% and 20% adverse changes in those assumptions:
December 31, 2003 (in millions) Mortgage Credit card Automobile Commercial
Weighted-average life 1.4–2.7 years 5–15 months 1.5 years 0.6–5.9 years
Prepayment rate 29.0–31.7% CPR 8.1–15.1% 1.5% WAC/WAM NA(a), 50.0%
Impact of 10% adverse change $ (17) $ (7) $ (10) $ (1)
Impact of 20% adverse change (31) (13) (19) (2)
Loss assumption 0.0–4.0%(b) 5.5–8.0% 0.6% NA(c)
Impact of 10% adverse change $ (28) $ (21) $ (6) $ —
Impact of 20% adverse change (57) (41) (12) —
Discount rate 13.0–30.0%(d) 8.3–12.0% 4.4% 5.0–20.9%
Impact of 10% adverse change $ (14) $ (1) $ (1) $ (1)
Impact of 20% adverse change (27) (3) (2) (2)
(a) Prepayment risk on certain commercial retained interests are minimal and are incorporated into other assumptions.
(b) Expected credit losses for prime mortgage securitizations are minimal and are incorporated into other assumptions.
(c) Not applicable, as modeling assumptions for predominantly all of the commercial retained interests consider overcollateralization coverage.
(d) During 2003, the Firm sold certain residual interests of approximately $390.5 million from sub-prime mortgage securitizations via Net Interest Margin (“NIM”) securitizations. The Firm retained residual
interests in these and prior NIM securitizations of approximately $169.8 million, which are valued using a 30% discount rate.
The sensitivity analysis in the preceding table is hypothetical. The table below displays the expected static-pool net credit losses
Changes in fair value based on a 10% or 20% variation in for 2003, 2002 and 2001, based on securitizations occurring in
assumptions generally cannot be extrapolated easily, because that year:
the relationship of the change in the assumptions to the change
Loans securitized in: (a)(b)
in fair value may not be linear. Also, in this table, the effect that 2003 2002 2001
a change in a particular assumption may have on the fair value
Mortgage Auto Mortgage Auto Mortgage Auto
is calculated without changing any other assumption. In reality,
changes in one factor may result in changes in another assump- December 31, 2003 0.0–3.6% 0.9% 0.0–2.8% 0.8% 0.0–2.7% 1.0%
tion, which might counteract or magnify the sensitivities. December 31, 2002 NA NA 0.1–3.7 0.9 0.1–3.8 0.9
December 31, 2001 NA NA NA NA 0.1–2.3 0.8
Expected static-pool net credit losses include actual incurred
(a) No expected static-pool net credit losses on commercial securitizations due to collateral coverage
losses plus projected net credit losses, divided by the original on loans in commercial securitizations.
balance of the outstandings comprising the securitization pool. (b) Static-pool losses not applicable to credit card securitizations due to their revolving structure.

The table below presents information about delinquencies, net • Investment Management & Private Banking – Provides invest-
credit losses and components of reported and securitized finan- ment management services to a limited number of the Firm’s
cial assets at December 31, 2003 and 2002: mutual funds deemed VIEs. The services provided are similar
to the services provided to non-VIEs, as asset manager to the
Type of loan Loans 90 days or Net Firm’s mutual funds. IMPB earns a fixed fee based on assets
Total loans more past due charge-offs managed; such fee varies with each fund’s investment objec-
December 31, Year ended tive and is industry-competitive. The majority of the residual
(in millions) 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 returns and expected losses are for the account of the funds’
Mortgage(a) $ 89,276 $ 81,570 $ 898 $ 956 $ 224 $ 272 investors. The Firm generally does not hold an equity interest
Credit card 51,649 50,399 1,138 1,096 2,942 2,828 in the funds, although in certain instances, it may hold a
Automobile 45,010 37,980 132 130 196 184 nominal interest. For the limited number of funds that qualify
Other(b) 7,221 7,524 87 98 180 189
as VIEs, the Firm’s interest is not considered significant under
Consumer loans 193,156 177,473 2,255 2,280 3,542 3,473
Commercial loans 85,205 92,866 2,064 3,749 816 1,881
FIN 46 for disclosure purposes.
Total loans reported • JPMorgan Partners – JPMP, the Firm’s private equity business,
and securitized(c) 278,361 270,339 4,319 6,029 4,358 5,354
Less: Loans
is involved with entities that may be deemed VIEs. JPMP
securitized(a) (58,843) (53,975) (1,495) (1,306) (2,086) (1,678) accounts for its activities in accordance with the Investment
Reported $ 219,518 $216,364 $ 2,824 $ 4,723 $ 2,272 $ 3,676 Company Audit Guide (“Audit Guide”). The FASB deferred
adoption of FIN 46 for non-registered investment companies
(a) Includes $13.6 billion of outstanding principal balances on securitized sub-prime 1–4 family
residential mortgage loans as of December 31, 2003. that apply the Audit Guide. See the FIN 46 Transition section
(b) Includes non-U.S. consumer loans. of this Note.
(c) Represents both loans on the Consolidated balance sheet and loans that have been securitized,
but excludes loans for which the Firm’s only continuing involvement is servicing of the assets.
• Chase Financial Services – Primarily utilizes SPEs to securitize
Total assets held in securitization-related SPEs, as of December 31, consumer assets; these entities meet the QSPE criteria as dis-
2003, were $104.0 billion (see table on page 101 of this Annual cussed in Note 1 on pages 86–87 and Note 13 on pages
Report). The $58.8 billion of loans securitized at December 31, 100–103 of this Annual Report, and they are not considered
2003, shown in the table above excludes: $37.1 billion of securi- VIEs. CFS is primarily involved with VIEs as part of its middle
tized loans, in which the Firm’s only continuing involvement is market business. This involvement includes: (1) synthetic lease
the servicing of the assets; $7.3 billion of seller’s interests in transactions, in which the Firm provides financing to a VIE;
credit card master trusts and subordinated accrued interest and in turn, the VIE purchases assets, which are then leased by
fees; and $0.8 billion of escrow accounts and other assets. the VIE to the Firm’s customer; and (2) structuring and admin-
istering independent, member-owned finance entities for
companies with dedicated distribution systems, where the
Note 14 Variable interest entities Firm may also provide some liquidity, letters of credit and/or
derivative instruments. Chase Middle Market earns market-
JPMorgan Chase’s business segments are involved with VIEs in based fees for providing such services. The VIEs that the Firm
the following manner: either has an investment in or lends to neither meet the
requirements for consolidation nor are considered significant
• Investment Bank – Utilizes VIEs, such as multi-seller conduits, to
for disclosure purposes, since the significant first-loss position
assist clients in accessing the financial markets in a cost-efficient
is held by third parties.
manner, by providing clients the structural flexibility to meet the
needs of investors relating to factors such as price, yield and As noted above, there are two broad categories of transactions
desired risks. The Firm also acts as a financial intermediary to involving VIEs with which the IB is involved: multi-seller conduits
tailor products for investors. Finally, the IB securitizes commer- and client intermediation. These are discussed more fully below.
cial mortgages through QSPEs, which are not considered VIEs,
to create commercial mortgage-backed securities, as further Multi-seller conduits
discussed in Note 13 on pages 100-103 of this Annual Report.
JPMorgan Chase serves as the administrator, and provides con-
• Treasury & Securities Services – Provides trustee and custodial tingent liquidity support and limited credit enhancement, for
services to a number of VIEs. These services are similar to those several commercial paper conduits. These conduits give clients
provided to non-VIEs. TSS earns market-based fees for services access to liquidity in the commercial paper markets by allowing
provided. Such relationships are not considered significant them to sell assets to the conduit, which then issues commercial
interests under FIN 46 for disclosure purposes. paper to investors to fund the purchases. The Firm does not sell
assets to or service the assets held by these commercial paper

conduits. Commercial paper issued by conduits for which the Firm of the conduit. In determining the primary beneficiary of the
acts as administrator aggregated $11.7 billion at December 31, conduit, the Firm leveraged an existing rating agency model
2003, and $17.5 billion at December 31, 2002. The commercial that is an independent market standard to size the expected
paper issued is backed by sufficient collateral, credit enhance- losses and considered the relative rights and obligations of each
ments and commitments to provide liquidity to support receiving of the variable interest holders. As a result of the restructuring,
at least an A-1, P-1 and, in certain cases, an F1 rating. JPMorgan Chase deconsolidated approximately $5.4 billion of
the vehicle’s assets and liabilities as of December 31, 2003.
The Firm had commitments to provide liquidity on an asset-
specific basis to these vehicles in an amount up to $18.0 billion The remaining conduits continue to be consolidated on the
at December 31, 2003, and $23.5 billion at December 31, Firm’s balance sheet at December 31, 2003: $4.8 billion of
2002. Third-party banks had commitments to provide liquidity assets recorded in Loans, and $1.5 billion of assets recorded in
on an asset-specific basis to these vehicles in an amount up to Available-for-sale securities.
$700 million at December 31, 2003, and up to $900 million
at December 31, 2002. Asset-specific liquidity is the primary
Client intermediation
source of liquidity support for the conduits. In addition, As a financial intermediary, the Firm is involved in structuring
program-wide liquidity is provided by JPMorgan Chase to these VIE transactions to meet investor and client needs. The Firm inter-
vehicles in the event of short-term disruptions in the commer- mediates various types of risks (including, for example, fixed
cial paper market; these commitments totaled $2.6 billion and income, equity and credit), typically using derivative instruments.
$2.7 billion at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. For In certain circumstances, the Firm also provides liquidity and
certain multi-seller conduits, JPMorgan Chase also provides lim- other support to the VIEs to facilitate the transaction. The Firm’s
ited credit enhancement, primarily through the issuance of current exposure to nonconsolidated VIEs is reflected in its
letters of credit. Commitments under these letters of credit Consolidated balance sheet or in the Notes to consolidated
totaled $1.9 billion and $3.4 billion at December 31, 2003 and financial statements. The risks inherent in derivative instruments
2002, respectively. JPMorgan Chase applies the same or liquidity commitments are managed similarly to other credit,
underwriting standards in making liquidity commitments to market and liquidity risks to which the Firm is exposed.
conduits as the Firm would with other extensions of credit.
Assets held by certain client intermediation–related VIEs at
If JPMorgan Chase were downgraded below A-1, P-1 and, in December 31, 2003 and 2002, were as follows:
certain cases, F1, the Firm could also be required to provide
funding under these liquidity commitments, since commercial
paper rated below A-1, P-1 or F1 would generally not be December 31, (in billions) 2003 2002
issuable by the vehicle. Under these circumstances, the Firm Structured commercial loan vehicles $ 5.3 $ 7.2
could either replace itself as liquidity provider or facilitate the Credit-linked note vehicles 17.7 9.2
sale or refinancing of the assets held in the VIE in other Municipal bond vehicles 5.5 5.0
markets. Other client intermediation vehicles 5.8 7.4
JPMorgan Chase’s maximum credit exposure to these vehicles The Firm has created structured commercial loan vehicles
at December 31, 2003, is $18.7 billion, as the Firm cannot be managed by third parties, in which loans are purchased from
obligated to fund the entire notional amounts of asset-specific third parties or through the Firm’s syndication and trading func-
liquidity, program-wide liquidity and credit enhancement facili- tions and funded by issuing commercial paper. Investors provide
ties at the same time. However, the Firm views its credit collateral and have a first risk of loss up to the amount of collat-
exposure to multi-seller conduit transactions as limited. This is eral pledged. The Firm retains a second-risk-of-loss position for
because, for the most part, the Firm is not required to fund these vehicles and does not absorb a majority of the expected
under the liquidity facilities if the assets in the VIE are in default. losses of the vehicles. Documentation includes provisions intended,
Additionally, the Firm’s obligations under the letters of credit are subject to certain conditions, to enable JPMorgan Chase to termi-
secondary to the risk of first loss provided by the client or other nate the transactions related to a particular loan vehicle if the
third parties – for example, by the overcollateralization of the value of the relevant portfolio declines below a specified level.
VIE with the assets sold to it. The amount of the commercial paper issued by these vehicles
totaled $5.3 billion as of December 31, 2003, and $7.2 billion as
JPMorgan Chase consolidated these asset-backed commercial
of December 31, 2002. JPMorgan Chase was committed to pro-
paper conduits at July 1, 2003, in accordance with FIN 46
vide liquidity to these VIEs of up to $8.0 billion at December 31,
and recorded the assets and liabilities of the conduits on its
2003, and $12.0 billion at December 31, 2002. The Firm’s maxi-
Consolidated balance sheet. In December 2003, one of the
mum exposure to loss to these vehicles at December 31, 2003,
multi-seller conduits was restructured with the issuance of
was $5.5 billion, which reflects the netting of collateral and other
preferred securities acquired by an independent third-party
program limits.
investor, who will absorb the majority of the expected losses

The Firm structures credit-linked notes in which the VIE Finally, the Firm may enter into transactions with VIEs structured
purchases highly-rated assets (such as asset-backed securities) by other parties. These transactions can include, for example, act-
and enters into a credit derivative contract with the Firm to ing as a derivative counterparty, liquidity provider, investor,
obtain exposure to a referenced credit not held by the VIE. underwriter, placement agent, trustee or custodian. These trans-
Credit-linked notes are issued by the VIE to transfer the risk of actions are conducted at arm’s length, and individual credit
the referenced credit to the investors in the VIE. Clients and decisions are based upon the analysis of the specific VIE, taking
investors often prefer a VIE structure, since the credit-linked into consideration the quality of the underlying assets. JPMorgan
notes generally carry a higher credit rating than they would if Chase records and reports these positions similarly to any other
issued directly by JPMorgan Chase. The Firm’s derivative contract third-party transaction. For example, derivative contracts are
is not considered a significant variable interest in the VIE, recorded at fair value and reported in Note 31 on pages 120–123
because it does not absorb risk but rather adds risk to the of this Annual Report, whereas liquidity facilities are included
vehicle, which is ultimately absorbed by the investors. The fair within the Firm’s lending-related commitments, described in more
value of the Firm’s derivative contracts with credit-linked notes detail in Note 29 on pages 117–119 of this Annual Report. Fees
vehicles was not material at December 31, 2003. Assets of received when the Firm operates in an administrative capacity,
$2.1 billion and $1.3 billion reported in the table above were such as underwriter, trustee or custodian, are recorded in Fees
recorded on the Firm's Consolidated balance sheet at December and commissions. These activities do not cause JPMorgan Chase
31, 2003 and December 31, 2002, respectively, due to other to absorb a majority of the expected losses of the VIEs or receive
contractual relationships held by the Firm that relate to the col- a majority of the residual returns of the VIE, and they are not con-
lateral held by the VIE. sidered significant for disclosure purposes.
The Firm is involved with municipal bond vehicles for the pur- FIN 46 Transition
pose of creating a series of secondary market trusts that allow
tax-exempt investors to finance their investments at short-term Effective February 1, 2003, JPMorgan Chase implemented FIN 46
tax-exempt rates. The VIE purchases fixed-rate, longer-term for VIEs created or modified after January 31, 2003, in which the
highly rated municipal bonds by issuing puttable floating-rate Firm has an interest. Effective July 1, 2003, the Firm implemented
certificates and inverse floating-rate certificates; the investors in FIN 46 for all VIEs originated prior to February 1, 2003, excluding
the inverse floating-rate certificates are exposed to the residual certain investments made by its private equity business, as
losses of the VIE (the “residual interests”). The Firm often serves discussed below. The effect of adoption was an incremental
as remarketing agent for the VIE and provides liquidity to support increase in the Firm’s assets and liabilities of approximately $17
the remarketing; total liquidity commitments were $1.8 billion billion at July 1, 2003, and $10 billion at December 31, 2003.
and $1.5 billion at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. The increase primarily related to Firm-sponsored multi-seller
In circumstances where the Firm owns the residual interests, the asset-backed commercial paper conduits and other entities in
Firm consolidates the VIE; total amounts consolidated were which the Firm’s trading and investment functions have interests
$2.5 billion and $1.3 billion at December 31, 2003 and 2002, that absorb a majority of the expected losses in the structures.
respectively, which are reported in the table above. In circum- In addition, certain VIEs with assets of approximately $2 billion
stances where third party investors own the residual interests, at December 31, 2003 that had been consolidated under prior
the Firm's exposure is limited because of the high credit quality accounting literature continue to be consolidated in accordance
of the underlying municipal bonds, the market-value triggers with FIN 46. As a result of its adoption of FIN 46, the Firm also
based on the value of the underlying collateral and the residual deconsolidated certain vehicles, primarily the wholly-owned
interests held by third parties. The Firm's maximum credit Delaware statutory business trusts further discussed in Note 18
exposure to all municipal bond vehicles was $4.3 billion at on pages 110–111 of this Annual Report.
December 31, 2003.
The Firm’s private equity business is involved with entities that
Additionally, JPMorgan Chase structures, on behalf of clients, may be deemed VIEs. The FASB permitted nonregistered invest-
other client intermediation vehicles in which the Firm transfers ment companies to defer consolidation of VIEs with which they
the risks and returns of the assets held by the VIE, typically debt are involved until the proposed Statement of Position on the clar-
and equity instruments, to clients through derivative contracts. ification of the scope of the Investment Company Audit Guide is
The Firm’s net exposure arising from these intermediation trans- finalized, which is expected in mid-2004. Following issuance of
actions is not significant. The Firm’s current exposure to all of the Statement of Position, the FASB will consider further modifi-
these vehicles is reflected in its Consolidated financial cation to FIN 46 to provide an exception for companies that
statements, as the fair value of the derivative contracts are qualify to apply the revised Audit Guide. The Firm applied this
recorded in Trading assets or Trading liabilities, and changes in deferral provision and did not consolidate $2.7 billion of
fair value are recognized in Trading revenue.

additional assets in potential VIEs with which JPMP is involved as Note 15 Private equity investments
of December 31, 2003. Following issuance of the revised Audit
Guide and further modification, if any, to FIN 46, the Firm will Private equity investments are primarily held by JPMorgan
assess the effect of such guidance on its private equity business. Partners (“JPMP”), the Firm’s global private equity investment
business segment. JPMP invests in buyouts, growth equity and
Upon adoption of FIN 46, the assets, liabilities and noncontrolling venture opportunities in the normal course of business. These
interests of VIEs were generally measured at the amounts at investments are accounted for under investment company guide-
which such interests would have been carried had FIN 46 been lines. Accordingly, these investments, irrespective of the percent-
effective when the Firm first met the conditions to be considered age of equity ownership interest held by JPMP, are carried on the
the primary beneficiary. For certain VIEs, the initial carrying Consolidated balance sheet at fair value. Realized and unrealized
amount of the assets and liabilities (approximately $1.7 billion) gains and losses arising from changes in value are reported in
was based on fair value at July 1, 2003, due to limited historical Private equity gains (losses) in the Consolidated statement of
information. The difference between the net amount added to income in the period that the gain or loss occurs.
the balance sheet and the amount of any previously recognized
interest in the newly consolidated entity was recognized as a Private investments are initially valued based on cost. The carrying
cumulative effect of an accounting change at July 1, 2003, which values of private investments are adjusted from cost to reflect
resulted in a $2 million (after-tax) reduction to the Firm’s consoli- both positive and negative changes evidenced by financing events
dated earnings. The Firm also recorded a $34 million (after-tax) with third-party capital providers. In addition, these investments
reduction in Other comprehensive income, related to Available- are subject to ongoing impairment reviews by JPMP’s senior
for-sale securities and derivative cash flow hedges; these were investment professionals. A variety of factors are reviewed and
related to entities measured at the amount at which such monitored to assess impairment – including, but not limited to,
interests would have been carried had FIN 46 been effective when operating performance and future expectations, comparable
the Firm first met the conditions of being the primary beneficiary. industry valuations of public companies, changes in market out-
look and changes in the third-party financing environment. The
The following table summarizes the Firm’s total consolidated VIE Valuation Control Group within the Finance area is responsible
assets, by classification on the Consolidated balance sheet, as of for reviewing the accuracy of the carrying values of private
December 31, 2003. investments held by JPMP.
December 31, (in billions) 2003
JPMP also holds public equity investments, generally obtained
Consolidated VIE assets(a) through the initial public offering of private equity investments.
Loans(b) $ 5.8 These investments are marked to market at the quoted public
Investment securities 3.8 value. To determine the carrying values of these investments,
Trading assets(c) 2.7
JPMP incorporates the use of discounts to take into account the
Other assets 0.1
fact that it cannot immediately realize or hedge the quoted
Total consolidated assets $ 12.4 public values as a result of regulatory, corporate and/or contrac-
(a) The Firm also holds $3 billion of assets, primarily as a seller’s interest, in certain consumer tual sales restrictions imposed on these holdings.
securitizations in a segregated entity, as part of a two-step securitization transaction. This
interest is included in the securitization activities disclosed in Note 13 on pages 100-103 of The following table presents the carrying value and cost of the
this Annual Report and is not included herein.
(b) Primarily relates to the consolidated multi-seller asset-backed commercial paper conduits. private equity investment portfolio for the dates indicated:
(c) Includes securities and derivatives.
2003 2002
In the third quarter of 2003, the Firm classified the interest-bearing Carrying Carrying
beneficial interest liabilities issued by consolidated VIEs in a new December 31, (in millions) value Cost value Cost
line item titled “Beneficial interests issued by consolidated variable
Total investment portfolio $ 7,250 $ 9,147 $ 8,228 $ 10,312
interest entities.” The holders of these beneficial interests do not
have recourse to the general credit of JPMorgan Chase. See Note
18 on page 110 of this Annual Report for the maturity profile of The following table presents private equity investment realized
the FIN 46 long-term beneficial interests. and unrealized gains and losses for the periods indicated:
In December 2003, the FASB issued a revision to FIN 46 (“FIN Year ended December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002 2001
46R”) to address various technical corrections and implementa-
tion issues that have arisen since the issuance of FIN 46. The Realized gains (losses) $ (44) $ (105) $ 651
Unrealized gains (losses) 77 (641) (1,884)
provisions of FIN 46R are effective for financial periods ending
after March 15, 2004. The Firm will adopt FIN 46R at the effec- Private equity gains (losses)(a) $ 33 $ (746) $ (1,233)
tive date and is currently assessing the impact of FIN 46R on all (a) Includes the impact of portfolio hedging activities.
VIEs with which it is involved.

Note 16 Goodwill and other intangible assets Goodwill
Goodwill increased during 2003 by $415 million, principally

Effective January 1, 2002, the Firm adopted SFAS 142, reclassi-
in connection with acquisitions of businesses by Treasury &
fying certain intangible assets from Goodwill to Other intangible
Securities Services, and purchase accounting adjustments. No
assets. There was no impairment of goodwill upon adoption of
goodwill was written off during 2003 or 2002.
SFAS 142.
Goodwill by business segment is as follows:
Goodwill is not amortized, but instead tested for impairment at
the reporting-unit segment (which is one level below the five December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002
major business segments as described in Note 34 on pages 126-
Investment Bank $ 2,058 $ 2,051
127 of this Annual Report). Goodwill is tested annually (during
Treasury & Securities Services 1,390 996
the fourth quarter) or more often if events or circumstances,
Investment Management & Private Banking 4,179 4,165
such as adverse changes in the business climate, indicate there JPMorgan Partners 377 377
may be impairment. Other acquired intangible assets deter- Chase Financial Services 507 507
mined to have finite lives, such as core deposits and credit card
Total goodwill $ 8,511 $ 8,096
relationships, are amortized over their estimated useful lives
in a manner that best reflects the economic benefits of the
intangible asset. In addition, impairment testing is performed Mortgage servicing rights
periodically on these amortizing intangible assets.
JPMorgan Chase recognizes as intangible assets Mortgage servic-
The following table presents the impact of SFAS 142 on net ing rights (“MSRs”), which represent the right to perform speci-
income and earnings per share had the accounting standard fied residential mortgage servicing activities for others. MSRs are
been in effect for 2001: either purchased from third parties or retained upon sale or
Year ended December 31, (in millions, Pro Forma securitization of mortgage loans. Servicing activities include col-
except earnings per share) 2003 2002 2001 lecting principal, interest, and escrow payments from borrowers;
making tax and insurance payments on behalf of the borrowers;
Net Income
monitoring delinquencies and executing foreclosure proceed-
Income before effect of accounting change $6,719 $ 1,663 $ 1,719
ings; and accounting for and remitting principal and interest
Net effect of change in accounting principle — — (25)
payments to the investors of the mortgage-backed securities.
Net income 6,719 1,663 1,694
Goodwill amortization, net of taxes — — 393 The amount capitalized as MSRs represents the amount paid to
Adjusted net income $6,719 $ 1,663 $ 2,087 third parties to acquire MSRs or is based on fair value if retained
Basic Earnings per Share upon sale or securitization of mortgage loans. The Firm esti-
Reported basic earnings per share $ 3.32 $ 0.81 $ 0.83 mates the fair value of MSRs using a discounted future cash
Goodwill amortization — — 0.19 flow model. The model considers portfolio characteristics, con-
Adjusted basic earnings per share $ 3.32 $ 0.81 $ 1.02 tractually specified servicing fees, prepayment assumptions,
delinquency rates, late charges, other ancillary revenues, costs
Diluted Earnings per Share
Reported diluted earnings per share $ 3.24 $ 0.80 $ 0.80 to service and other economic factors. The Firm compares its
Goodwill amortization — — 0.19 fair value estimates and assumptions to observable market data
Adjusted diluted earnings per share $ 3.24 $ 0.80 $ 0.99 where available and to recent market activity and actual port-
folio experience. Management believes that the assumptions
Goodwill and Other intangible assets consist of the following: used to estimate fair values are supportable and reasonable.
The Firm accounts for its MSRs at the lower of cost or market,
in accordance with SFAS 140. MSRs are amortized as a reduc-
Goodwill $ 8,511 $ 8,096 tion of the actual servicing income received in proportion to,
and over the period of the estimated future net servicing
Other intangible assets:
Mortgage servicing rights $ 4,781 $ 3,230
income stream of, the underlying mortgage loans. For purposes
Purchased credit card relationships 1,014 1,269
All other intangibles 685 307
Total other intangible assets $ 6,480 $ 4,806

of evaluating and measuring impairment of MSRs, the Firm comparing the change in the value of the MSRs as a result of
stratifies its portfolio on the basis of the predominant risk char- changes in benchmark interest rates to the change in the value
acteristics: loan type and interest rate. Any indicated impairment of the designated derivatives. For a further discussion on deriva-
is recognized as a reduction in revenue through a valuation tive instruments and hedging activities, see Note 28 on pages
allowance to the extent that the carrying value of an individual 116-117 of this Annual Report.
stratum exceeds its estimated fair value.
AFS securities are also used to manage the risk exposure of
The Firm evaluates other-than-temporary impairment by review- MSRs. These instruments are accounted for as stand-alone
ing changes in mortgage and other market interest rates over instruments, because AFS securities do not qualify as hedges
historical periods and then determines an interest rate scenario under SFAS 133. Accordingly, the securities are accounted for as
to estimate the amounts of the MSRs’ gross carrying value and AFS securities under SFAS 115, with realized gains and losses
the related valuation allowance that could be expected to be recognized in earnings in Securities gains (losses); interest
recovered in the foreseeable future. Any gross carrying value income on the AFS securities is recognized in earnings in Net
and related valuation allowance amount that are not expected interest income. Unrealized gains and losses on AFS securities
to be recovered in the foreseeable future, based upon the inter- are reported in Other comprehensive income. In addition, cer-
est rate scenario, are considered to be other-than-temporary. tain nonhedge derivatives, which have not been designated by
management in SFAS 133 hedge relationships, are used to man-
The carrying value of MSRs is sensitive to changes in interest
age the economic risk exposure of MSRs and are recorded in
rates, including their effect on prepayment speeds. The Firm
Mortgage fees and related income.
offsets this interest rate risk by designating certain derivatives
(e.g., a combination of swaps, swaptions and floors that pro- The following table summarizes MSR activity and related amorti-
duces an interest rate profile opposite to the designated risk of zation for the dates indicated. It also includes the key assumptions
the hedged MSRs) as fair value hedges of specified MSRs under and the sensitivity of the fair value of MSRs at December 31,
SFAS 133. SFAS 133 hedge accounting allows the carrying value 2003, to immediate 10% and 20% adverse changes in each of
of the hedged MSRs to be adjusted through earnings in the those assumptions:
same period that the change in value of the hedging derivatives Year ended December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002 2001
is recognized through earnings. Both of these valuation adjust-
ments are recorded in Mortgage fees and related income. Balance at beginning of year $ 4,864 $ 7,749 $ 6,461
Additions 3,201 2,071 3,394
When applying SFAS 133, the loans underlying the MSRs being Sales — — (103)
hedged are stratified into specific SFAS 133 similar-asset group- Other-than-temporary impairment (283) — —
ings that possess similar interest rate and prepayment risk expo- SFAS 133 hedge valuation adjustments (226) (3,589) (880)
sures. The documented hedge period for the Firm is daily. Daily Amortization (1,397) (1,367) (1,123)
adjustments are performed to incorporate new or terminated Balance at end of year 6,159 4,864 7,749
derivative contracts and to modify the amount of the correspon- Less: Valuation allowance (1,378) (1,634) (1,170)
ding similar asset grouping that is being hedged. The Firm has Balance at end of year, after valuation allowance $ 4,781 $ 3,230 $ 6,579
designated changes in the benchmark interest rate (LIBOR) as Estimated fair value at year-end $ 4,781 $ 3,230 $ 6,579
the hedged risk. In designating the benchmark interest rate, the
Firm considers the impact that the change in the benchmark
2003
rate has on the prepayment speed estimates in determining the
fair value of the MSRs. The Firm performs both prospective and Weighted-average prepayment speed assumption (CPR) 17.67%
retrospective hedge effectiveness evaluations, using a regression Impact on fair value with 10% adverse change $ (287)
analysis, to determine whether the hedge relationship is expected Impact on fair value with 20% adverse change (544)
to be highly effective. Hedge effectiveness is assessed by Weighted-average discount rate 7.31%
Impact on fair value with 10% adverse change $ (114)
Impact on fair value with 20% adverse change (223)
CPR: Constant prepayment rate.

The sensitivity analysis in the preceding table is hypothetical and The components of Other intangible assets were as follows:
should be used with caution. As the figures indicate, changes
Amortization
in fair value based on a 10% and 20% variation in assumptions
December 31, 2003 expense
generally cannot be easily extrapolated because the relationship
Gross Accumulated Net carrying
of the change in the assumptions to the change in fair value
(in millions) amount amortization value 2003 2002
may not be linear. Also, in this table, the effect that a change
in a particular assumption may have on the fair value is calculated Purchased credit
without changing any other assumption. In reality, changes in card relationships $ 1,885 $ 871 $ 1,014 $ 256 $ 280
one factor may result in changes in another, which might mag- All other intangibles 1,093 408 685 38 43
nify or counteract the sensitivities. Total amortization expense $ 294 $ 323
The valuation allowance represents the extent to which the

carrying value of MSRs exceeds its estimated fair value. Changes Future amortization expense
in the valuation allowance are the result of the recognition of
impairment or the recovery of previously recognized impairment The following table presents estimated amortization expense
charges due to changes in market conditions during the period. related to purchased credit card relationships and all other
The changes in the valuation allowance for MSRs for the dates intangible assets at December 31, 2003:
indicated were as follows:
Purchased credit All other
Year ended December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002 2001 (in millions) card relationships intangible assets
Balance at beginning of year $ 1,634 $ 1,170 $ 99 Year ended December 31,

Other-than-temporary impairment (283) — — 2004 $ 243 $ 69
Impairment adjustment 27 464 1,071 2005 235 61
2006 222 56
Balance at end of year $ 1,378 $ 1,634 $ 1,170
2007 187 49
2008 117 47
During 2003, the Firm recorded an other-than-temporary impair-
ment of its MSRs of $283 million, which permanently reduced
the gross carrying value of the MSRs and the related valuation Note 17 Premises and equipment
allowance. The permanent reduction precludes subsequent rever-
sals. This write-down had no impact on the results of operations Premises and equipment, including leasehold improvements, are
or financial condition of the Firm. carried at cost less accumulated depreciation and amortization.
JPMorgan Chase generally computes depreciation using the
Purchased credit card relationships and other straight-line method over the estimated useful life of an asset.
intangible assets For leasehold improvements, the Firm uses the straight-line
No purchased credit card relationships were acquired during method over the lesser of the remaining term of the leased
2003. Other intangibles (primarily customer relationships) facility or the estimated economic life of the improvement.
increased by approximately $428 million, principally due to the JPMorgan Chase capitalizes certain costs associated with the
businesses acquired by Treasury & Securities Services. All of the acquisition or development of internal-use software. Once the
Firm’s acquired intangible assets are subject to amortization. For software is ready for its intended use, these costs are amortized
the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, intangible asset on a straight-line basis over the software’s expected useful life.
amortization expense was $294 million and $323 million, respec-
tively. Amortization expense for 2002 included a $12 million
Note 18 Long-term debt
impairment write-down on purchased credit card relationships
related to a small credit card portfolio previously acquired. JPMorgan Chase issues long-term debt denominated in various
currencies, although predominantly U.S. dollars, with both fixed
and variable interest rates. The following table is a summary of
long-term debt (net of unamortized original issue debt discount
and SFAS 133 valuation adjustments):

By remaining contractual maturity at December 31, Under After 2003 2002

(in millions) 1 year 1-5 years 5 years total total
Parent company
Senior debt: Fixed rate $ 2,525 $11,205 $ 1,314 $ 15,044 $ 11,516
Variable rate(a) 2,558 7,856 282 10,696 8,657
Interest rates(b) 1.29 – 6.75% 0.96 – 7.50% 1.06 – 6.00% 0.96 – 7.50% 0.96% – 7.50%
Subordinated debt: Fixed rate $ 715 $ 3,863 $ 9,804 $ 14,382 $ 13,839
Variable rate — 384 129 513 1,083
Interest rates(b) 6.88 – 7.63% 4.78 – 7.88% 5.00 – 8.25% 4.78 – 8.25% 4.35% – 8.50%
Subtotal $ 5,798 $23,308 $ 11,529 $ 40,635 $ 35,095
Subsidiaries
Senior debt: Fixed rate $ 513 $ 829 $ 1,487 $ 2,829 $ 2,848
Variable rate(a) 322 2,890 630 3,842 725
Interest rates(b) 6.63 – 7.04% 2.41 – 10.95% 1.13 – 13.00% 1.13 – 13.00% 1.55% – 13.00%
Subordinated debt: Fixed rate $ — $ 708 $ — $ 708 $ 805
Variable rate — — — — 278
Interest rates(b) —% 6.13 – 7.00% —% 6.13 – 7.00% 4.20% – 7.00%
Subtotal $ 835 $ 4,427 $ 2,117 $ 7,379 $ 4,656
Total long-term debt $ 6,633 $27,735 $ 13,646 $ 48,014(e)(f)(g) $ 39,751
FIN 46 long-term beneficial interests:(c)(d)
Fixed rate $ — $ 249 $ 104 $ 353 NA
Variable rate 17 511 1,548 2,076 NA
Interest rates(b) 1.12% 1.39 – 10.00% 1.77 – 6.35% 1.12 – 10.00% NA
Total FIN 46 long-term beneficial interests $ 17 $ 760 $ 1,652 $ 2,429 NA
(a) Included are various equity-linked or other indexed instruments. Embedded derivatives separated from hybrid securities in accordance with SFAS 133 are reported at fair value and shown net with the host
contract on the balance sheet. Changes in fair value of separated derivatives are recorded in Trading revenue.
(b) The interest rates shown are the range of contractual rates in effect at year-end, including non-U.S. dollar fixed and variable rate issuances which excludes the effects of related derivative instruments.
The use of these derivative instruments modifies JPMorgan Chase’s exposure to the contractual interest rates disclosed in the table above. Including the effects of derivatives, the range of modified rates
in effect at December 31, 2003, for total long-term debt was 0.14% to 10.95%, versus the contractual range of 0.96% to 13.00% presented in the table above.
(c) Included on the Consolidated balance sheet in Beneficial interests issued by consolidated variable interest entities.
(d) Not applicable for years prior to 2003 since the Firm adopted FIN 46 during 2003.
(e) At December 31, 2003, long-term debt aggregating $2.0 billion was redeemable at the option of JPMorgan Chase, in whole or in part, prior to maturity, based on the terms specified in the respective notes.
(f) The aggregate principal amount of debt that matures in each of the five years subsequent to 2003 is $6.6 billion in 2004, $9.3 billion in 2005, $5.8 billion in 2006, $6.7 billion in 2007 and $5.9 billion
in 2008.
(g) Includes $1.1 billion of outstanding zero-coupon notes at December 31, 2003. The aggregate principal amount of these notes at their respective maturities is $4.6 billion.
The weighted-average contractual interest rate for total long- Junior subordinated deferrable interest debentures
term debt was 4.71% and 5.51% as of December 31, 2003 held by trusts that issued guaranteed capital debt
and 2002, respectively. In order to modify exposure to interest securities
rate and currency exchange rate movements, JPMorgan Chase
utilizes derivative instruments, primarily interest rate and cross- At December 31, 2003, the Firm had previously established
currency interest rate swaps, in conjunction with some of its wholly-owned Delaware statutory business trusts (“issuer
debt issues. The use of these instruments modifies the Firm’s trusts”) that issued guaranteed preferred beneficial interests in
interest expense on the associated debt. The modified weight- the Firm’s junior subordinated deferrable interest debentures.
ed-average interest rate for total long-term debt, including the Prior to FIN 46, these issuer trusts were consolidated subsidiaries
effects of related derivative instruments, was 2.79% and 3.42% of JPMorgan Chase; the preferred securities were included in
as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. JPMorgan Chase’s Consolidated balance sheet in the Liabilities
section, under the caption “Guaranteed preferred beneficial
JPMorgan Chase has guaranteed certain debt of its subsidiaries, interests in capital debt securities issued by consolidated trusts,”
including both long-term debt and structured notes sold as part and the retained common capital securities of the issuer trusts
of the Firm’s trading activities. These guarantees rank on a pari- were eliminated against the Firm’s investment in the issuer
ty with all other unsecured and unsubordinated indebtedness of trusts. Distributions on the preferred securities were recorded as
JPMorgan Chase. Guaranteed liabilities totaled $509 million and Interest expense on the Consolidated statement of income.
$1.5 billion at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
As a result of the adoption of FIN 46, JPMorgan Chase decon-
solidated all the issuer trusts. As a result, the junior subordinat-
ed deferrable interest debentures issued by JPMorgan Chase
to the issuer trusts, totaling $6.8 billion, are reflected in the
Firm’s Consolidated balance sheet in the Liabilities section at

December 31, 2003, under the caption “Junior subordinated The debentures issued by the issuer trusts to JPMorgan Chase, less
deferrable interest debentures held by trusts that issued guaran- the capital securities of the issuer trusts, continue to qualify as Tier 1
teed capital debt securities.” JPMorgan Chase records interest capital under interim guidance issued by the Board of Governors
expense on the corresponding junior subordinated debentures in of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve Board”).
its Consolidated statements of income. The Firm also recorded
The following is a summary of the outstanding capital securities,
the common capital securities issued by the issuer trusts in Other
net of discount, issued by each trust and the junior subordinated
assets in its Consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2003.
deferrable interest debenture issued by JPMorgan Chase to each
trust as of December 31, 2003:
Amount of Principal amount Stated maturity of Earliest Interest rate of Interest

($ in millions) capital securities, of debenture, Issue capital securities redemption capital securities payment/distribution
Name of trust issued by trust(a) held by trust(b) date and debentures date and debentures dates
Chase Capital I $ 600 $ 619 1996 2026 2006 7.67% Semiannually

Chase Capital II 495 511 1997 2027 2017 LIBOR + 0.50% Quarterly
Chase Capital III 296 305 1997 2027 2012 LIBOR + 0.55% Quarterly
Chase Capital V 200 206 1998 2028 Anytime 7.03% Quarterly
Chase Capital VI 248 257 1998 2028 Anytime LIBOR + 0.625% Quarterly
Chase Capital VII 350 361 1999 2029 2004 7.00% Quarterly
Chase Capital VIII 250 258 2000 2030 2005 8.25% Quarterly
JPM Capital Trust I 750 773 1996 2027 2007 7.54% Semiannually
JPM Capital Trust II 400 412 1997 2027 2007 7.95% Semiannually
J.P.Morgan Chase Capital IX 500 515 2001 2031 2006 7.50% Quarterly
J.P.Morgan Chase Capital X 1,000 1,031 2002 2032 2007 7.00% Quarterly
J.P.Morgan Chase Capital XI 1,075 1,108 2003 2033 2008 5.88% Quarterly
J.P.Morgan Chase Capital XII 400 412 2003 2033 2008 6.25% Quarterly
Total $ 6,564 $ 6,768
(a) Represents the amount of capital securities issued to the public by each trust, net of unamortized discount.
(b) Represents the principal amount of JPMorgan Chase debentures held as assets by each trust, net of unamortized discount.
Note 19 Preferred stock of subsidiary Note 20 Preferred stock
Chase Preferred Capital Corporation (“Chase Preferred JPMorgan Chase is authorized to issue 200 million shares of
Capital”), a wholly owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase Bank, preferred stock, in one or more series, with a par value of $1
a bank subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase, is a real estate investment per share. Outstanding preferred stock at both December 31,
trust (“REIT”) established for the purpose of acquiring, holding 2003 and 2002 was 17.8 million shares. The Firm did not issue,
and managing real estate mortgage assets. On February 28, redeem or repurchase any preferred stock during 2003 or 2002.
2002, Chase Preferred Capital redeemed all 22 million outstand-
Dividends on shares of each outstanding series of preferred
ing shares of its 8.10% Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series A, at
stock are payable quarterly. All the preferred stock outstanding
a redemption price of $25 plus accrued and unpaid dividends.
have preference over JPMorgan Chase’s common stock for the
payment of dividends and the distribution of assets in the event
of a liquidation or dissolution of JPMorgan Chase.
The following is a summary of JPMorgan Chase’s preferred stock outstanding:
Stated value and Shares Outstanding at December 31, Earliest Rate in effect at
redemption price per share(a) (in millions) 2003 (in millions) 2002 redemption date December 31, 2003
Adjustable rate, Series A cumulative $ 100.00 2.42 $ 242 $ 242 See Note(b) 5.00%(c)
Adjustable rate, Series L cumulative 100.00 2.00 200 200 See Note(b) 4.50(c)
Adjustable rate, Series N cumulative 25.00 9.10 228 228 See Note(b) 4.50(c)
Fixed/adjustable rate, noncumulative 50.00 4.00 200 200 See Note(b) 5.46(c)
6.63% Series H cumulative(d) 500.00 0.28 139 139 3/31/2006 6.63
Total preferred stock $ 1,009 $ 1,009
(a) Redemption price includes amount shown in the table plus any accrued but unpaid dividends.
(b) The shares are redeemable at any time with not less than 30 nor more than 60 days’ notice.
(c) Floating rates are based on certain U.S. Treasury rates. The minimum and maximum rates for Series A are 5.00% and 11.50% and for Series L and Series N are 4.50% and 10.50%, respectively.
The fixed/adjustable rate preferred stock remained fixed at 4.96% through June 30, 2003; thereafter, the minimum and maximum rates are 5.46% and 11.46%, respectively.
(d) Represented by depositary shares.

Note 21 Common stock Basic and diluted earnings per share were as follows for the
dates indicated:
JPMorgan Chase is authorized to issue 4.5 billion shares of Year ended December 31,
common stock, with a $1 par value per share. Common shares (in millions, except per share data) 2003 2002 2001
issued (newly issued or distributed from treasury) by JPMorgan
Chase during 2003, 2002 and 2001 were as follows: Basic earnings per share
Net income $ 6,719 $ 1,663 $ 1,694
December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002 2001 Less: Preferred stock dividends 51 51 66
Issued – balance at January 1 2,023.6 1,996.9 1,940.1 Net income applicable to common stock $ 6,668 $ 1,612 $ 1,628
Newly issued: Weighted-average basic shares outstanding 2,008.6 1,984.3 1,972.4
Employee benefits and compensation plans 20.9 25.9 55.0 Net income per share $ 3.32 $ 0.81 $ 0.83
Employee stock purchase plans 0.7 0.8 0.5 Diluted earnings per share
Purchase accounting acquisitions and other — — 1.8 Net income applicable to common stock $ 6,668 $ 1,612 $ 1,628
Total newly issued 21.6 26.7 57.3 Weighted-average basic shares outstanding 2,008.6 1,984.3 1,972.4
Cancelled shares (0.8) — (0.5) Add: Broad-based options 4.1 2.8 6.6
Total issued - balance at December 31 2,044.4 2,023.6 1,996.9 Key employee options 42.4 22.0 44.6
Weighted-average diluted shares outstanding 2,055.1 2,009.1 2,023.6
Treasury – balance at January 1 (24.9) (23.5) (11.6)
Net income per share (a) $ 3.24 $ 0.80 $ 0.80
Purchase of treasury stock — — (21.9)
Forfeitures to treasury (3.0) (3.9) (5.8) (a) Options issued under employee benefit plans to purchase 335 million, 362 million and
Issued from treasury: 190 million shares of common stock were outstanding for the years ended 2003, 2002 and
2001, respectively, but were not included in the computation of diluted EPS because the
Employee benefits and compensation plans 25.8 2.1 15.6
options’ exercise prices were greater than the average market price of the common shares.
Employee stock purchase plans 0.3 0.4 0.2
Total issued from treasury 26.1 2.5 15.8
Note 23 Comprehensive income
Total treasury – balance at December 31 (1.8) (24.9) (23.5)
Outstanding 2,042.6 1,998.7 1,973.4 Comprehensive income is composed of Net income and Other
comprehensive income, which includes the after-tax change in
The Firm did not repurchase shares of its common stock during unrealized gains and losses on AFS securities, cash flow hedging
2003 or 2002. During 2001, the Firm repurchased 21.9 million activities and foreign currency translation adjustments (including
shares of common stock under a plan which began on July 19, the impact of related derivatives).
2001.
The following table presents Other comprehensive income
As of December 31, 2003, approximately 462 million unissued (“OCI”) balances:
shares of common stock were reserved for issuance under Accumulated
various employee incentive, option and stock purchase plans. Year ended Unrealized Cash other
December 31, gains (losses) Translation flow comprehensive
Note 22 (in millions) on AFS securities(a) adjustments hedges income (loss)
Earnings per share
Balance December 31, 2000 $ (244) $ 3 NA $ (241)
SFAS 128 requires the presentation of basic and diluted earnings
Net change 109 (5) $ (305) (201)
per share (“EPS”) in the income statement. Basic EPS is computed
by dividing net income applicable to common stock by the Balance December 31, 2001 (135) (2) (305) (442)
weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for Net change 866 (4) 807 1,669
the period. Diluted EPS is computed using the same method as Balance December 31, 2002 731 (6) 502 1,227
basic EPS, but, in the denominator, common shares outstanding Net change (712)(b) —(c) (545) (1,257)
reflect the potential dilution that could occur if convertible secu-
Balance December 31, 2003 $ 19 $ (6)(d) $ (43) $ (30)
rities or other contracts to issue common stock were converted
(a) Represents the after-tax difference between the fair value and amortized cost
or exercised into common stock. Net income available for com-
of the AFS securities portfolio and retained interest in securitizations recorded in Other assets.
mon stock is the same computation for basic EPS and diluted (b) The net change during 2003 was primarily driven by increasing rates and the recognition
EPS as JPMorgan Chase had no convertible securities, and, of gains on sales of AFS securities.
(c) Includes $580 million of after-tax gains on foreign currency translation from operations
therefore, no adjustments to net income available for common for which the functional currency is other than the U.S. dollar, which were offset by
stock were necessary. $580 million of after-tax losses on hedges.
(d) Includes after-tax gains and losses on foreign currency translation, including related hedge
results from operations for which the functional currency is other than the U.S. dollar.
NA- Not applicable as SFAS 133 was adopted effective January 1, 2001.

The following table presents the after-tax changes for net unre- Deferred income tax expense (benefit) results from differences
alized holdings gains (losses) and reclassification adjustments between assets and liabilities measured for financial reporting
in unrealized gains and losses on AFS securities and cash flow and for income tax return purposes. The significant compo-
hedges. Reclassification adjustments include amounts recog- nents of deferred tax assets and liabilities are reflected in the
nized in net income during the current year that had been following table:
previously recorded in Other comprehensive income.
Deferred tax assets
Unrealized gains (losses) on AFS securities: Employee benefits $ 2,245 $ 1,621
Net unrealized holdings gains (losses) Allowance for loan losses 1,410 1,675
arising during the period, net of taxes(a) $ 149 $ 1,090 $ 443 Allowance for other than loan losses 1,152 1,251
Reclassification adjustment for gains Non-U.S. operations 741 1,055
included in income, net of taxes(b) (861) (224) (334) Foreign tax credit carryforward 23(a) 25
Net change $ (712) $ 866 $ 109 Gross deferred tax assets $ 5,571 $ 5,627
Cash flow hedges: Deferred tax liabilities

Net unrealized holdings gains (losses) Leasing transactions $ 3,703 $ 3,175
arising during the period, net of taxes(c) $ 86 $ 663 $ (356) Depreciation and amortization 1,037 857
Reclassification adjustment for (gains) losses Fair value adjustments 538 1,107
included in income, net of taxes(d) (631) 144 51 Non-U.S. operations 687 403
Other, net 478 379
Net change $ (545) $ 807 $ (305)
Gross deferred tax liabilities $ 6,443 $ 5,921
(a) Net of tax expense of $92 million for 2003, $758 million for 2002 and $308 million for 2001.
(b) Net of tax expense of $528 million for 2003, $156 million for 2002 and $232 million in 2001. Valuation allowance $ 160 $ 165
(c) Net of tax expense of $60 million for 2003 and $461 million for 2002, and net of tax benefit
of $247 million for 2001. Net deferred tax asset (liability) $ (1,032) $ (459)
(d) Net of tax expense of $438 million for 2003, and net of tax benefit of $100 million for 2002
and $35 million for 2001. (a) Includes $18 million and $5 million expiring in 2005 and 2007, respectively.
Note 24 Income taxes A valuation allowance has been recorded in accordance with
SFAS 109, primarily relating to deferred tax assets associated with
JPMorgan Chase and its eligible subsidiaries file a consolidated non-U.S. operations.
U.S. federal income tax return. JPMorgan Chase uses the asset
The components of income tax expense included in the
and liability method required by SFAS 109 to provide income
Consolidated statement of income were as follows:
taxes on all transactions recorded in the Consolidated financial
statements. This requires that income taxes reflect the expected
future tax consequences of temporary differences between the Year ended December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002 2001
carrying amounts of assets or liabilities for book and tax purposes.
Current income tax expense (benefit)
Accordingly, a deferred tax liability or asset for each temporary U.S. federal $ 965 $ (1,334) $ 598
difference is determined based on the tax rates that JPMorgan Non-U.S. 741 461 822
Chase expects to be in effect when the underlying items of U.S. state and local 175 93 65
income and expense are to be realized. JPMorgan Chase’s Total current expense (benefit) 1,881 (780) 1,485
expense for income taxes includes the current and deferred por-
tions of that expense. A valuation allowance is established to Deferred income tax expense (benefit)
reduce deferred tax assets to the amount JPMorgan Chase U.S. federal 1,341 1,630 (618)
expects to be realized. Non-U.S. 14 (352) (73)
U.S. state and local 73 358(a) 53
Total deferred expense (benefit) 1,428 1,636 (638)
Total income tax expense $ 3,309 $ 856 $ 847
(a) The increase in 2002 is principally attributable to the level of income in certain state and local
tax jurisdictions in 2002.
The preceding table does not reflect the tax effects of unrealized
gains and losses on AFS securities, SFAS 133 hedge transactions
and certain tax benefits associated with JPMorgan Chase’s
employee stock plans. The tax effect of these items is recorded
directly in Stockholders’ equity. Stockholders’ equity increased by
$898 million and $541 million in 2003 and 2001, respectively, and
decreased by $1.1 billion in 2002 as a result of these tax effects.

U.S. federal income taxes have not been provided on the undis- sidiary’s total capital. JPMorgan Chase and its affiliates were
tributed earnings of certain non-U.S. subsidiaries to the extent well within these limits throughout the year.
such earnings have been reinvested abroad for an indefinite period
The principal sources of JPMorgan Chase’s income (on a parent
of time. For 2003, such earnings approximated $326 million on a
company-only basis) are dividends and interest from JPMorgan
pre-tax basis. At December 31, 2003, the cumulative amount of
Chase Bank and the other banking and nonbanking subsidiaries
undistributed earnings in these subsidiaries approximated $2.3 bil-
of JPMorgan Chase. In addition to dividend restrictions set
lion. It is not practicable at this time to determine the income tax
forth in statutes and regulations, the Federal Reserve Board, the
liability that would result upon repatriation of these earnings.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) and the
The tax expense applicable to securities gains and losses for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) have authority
years 2003, 2002 and 2001 was $477 million, $531 million and under the Financial Institutions Supervisory Act to prohibit or to
$286 million, respectively. limit the payment of dividends by the banking organizations
they supervise, including JPMorgan Chase and its subsidiaries
A reconciliation of the applicable statutory U.S. income tax rate
that are banks or bank holding companies, if, in the banking
to the effective tax rate for the past three years is shown in the
regulator’s opinion, payment of a dividend would constitute an
following table:
unsafe or unsound practice in light of the financial condition of
Year ended December 31, 2003 2002 2001 the banking organization.
Statutory U.S. federal tax rate 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% At January 1, 2004 and 2003, JPMorgan Chase’s bank sub-
Increase (decrease) in tax rate resulting from: sidiaries could pay, in the aggregate, $4.4 billion and $1.3 bil-
U.S. state and local income taxes, net of lion, respectively, in dividends to their respective bank holding
federal income tax benefit 1.6 11.6(a) 3.0 companies without prior approval of their relevant banking reg-
Tax-exempt income (2.7) (6.8) (5.8)
ulators. Dividend capacity in 2004 will be supplemented by the
Non-U.S. subsidiary earnings (1.0) (3.2) (3.1)
banks’ earnings during the year.
General business credits (0.9) (3.5) (1.8)
Other, net 1.0 0.9 5.7 In compliance with rules and regulations established by U.S. and
Effective tax rate 33.0% 34.0% 33.0% non-U.S. regulators, as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, cash
(a) The increase in 2002 was principally attributable to the level of income in certain state in the amount of $3.5 billion and $2.1 billion, respectively, and
and local tax jurisdictions in 2002. securities with a market value of $3.1 billion and $3.0 billion,
respectively, were segregated in special bank accounts for the
The following table presents the U.S. and non-U.S. components benefit of securities and futures brokerage customers.
of income before income tax expense:
Note 26 Capital
There are two categories of risk-based capital: core capital
U.S. $ 7,333 $ 1,834 $ 1,258 (referred to as Tier 1 capital) and supplementary capital (referred
Non-U.S.(a) 2,695 685 1,308 to as Tier 2 capital). Tier 1 capital includes common stockhold-
Income before income tax expense $ 10,028 $ 2,519 $ 2,566 ers’ equity, qualifying preferred stock and minority interest less
(a) For purposes of this table, non-U.S. income is defined as income generated from operations goodwill and other adjustments. Tier 2 capital consists of pre-
located outside the United States. ferred stock not qualifying as Tier 1, long-term debt and other
instruments qualifying as Tier 2, the aggregate allowance for
Note 25 Restrictions on cash and
credit losses up to a certain percentage of risk-weighted assets,
intercompany funds transfers
less investments in certain subsidiaries. Under the risk-based
The Federal Reserve Board requires depository institutions to capital guidelines of the Federal Reserve Board, JPMorgan Chase
maintain cash reserves with a Federal Reserve Bank. The average is required to maintain minimum ratios of Tier 1 and total (Tier 1
amount of reserve balances deposited by JPMorgan Chase’s plus Tier 2) capital to risk-weighted assets, as well as minimum
bank subsidiaries with various Federal Reserve Banks was leverage ratios (which are defined as Tier 1 capital to average
approximately $2.6 billion in 2003 and $2.2 billion in 2002. adjusted on-balance sheet assets). Failure to meet these mini-
mum requirements could result in actions taken by the Federal
Restrictions imposed by federal law prohibit JPMorgan Chase Reserve Board. Bank subsidiaries also are subject to these capital
and certain other affiliates from borrowing from banking subsid- requirements by their respective primary regulators. Manage-
iaries unless the loans are secured in specified amounts. Such ment believes that as of December 31, 2003, JPMorgan Chase
secured loans to JPMorgan Chase or to other affiliates generally and each of its banking subsidiaries met all capital requirements
are limited to 10% of the banking subsidiary’s total capital, as to which each was subject and is not aware of any subsequent
determined by the risk-based capital guidelines; the aggregate events that would alter this classification. The Firm revised its
amount of all such loans is limited to 20% of the banking sub- calculation of risk-weighted assets during the third-quarter of
2003; capital ratios for periods prior to June 2003 have not
been recalculated.

The following table presents the risk-based capital ratios for JPMorgan Chase and its significant banking subsidiaries:
Risk- Adjusted Tier 1 Total Tier 1
(c)(e) (c)(e) (c)(f)
Tier 1 Total weighted average capital capital leverage
December 31, 2003 (in millions) capital(b)(c) capital(c) assets(d) assets ratio ratio ratio
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.(a) $ 43,167 $ 59,816 $ 507,456 $ 765,910 8.5% 11.8% 5.6%
JPMorgan Chase Bank 34,972 45,290 434,218 628,076 8.1 10.4 5.6
Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. 4,950 6,939 48,030 34,565 10.3 14.4 14.3
Well capitalized ratios(g) 6.00 10.00 5.00(h)
Minimum capital ratios(g) 4.00 8.00 3.00
(a) Assets and capital amounts for JPMorgan Chase’s banking subsidiaries reflect intercompany transactions, whereas the respective amounts for JPMorgan Chase reflect the elimination of intercompany
transactions.
(b) In accordance with the Federal Reserve Board risk-based capital guidelines, minority interest for JPMorgan Chase includes debentures issued to JPMorgan Chase less the capital securities of the issuer
trusts. For a further discussion, see Note 18 on pages 110-111 of this Annual Report.
(c) The provisions of SFAS 115 do not apply to the calculations of the Tier 1 capital and Tier 1 leverage ratios. The risk-based capital guidelines permit the inclusion of 45% of the pre-tax unrealized gain on
certain equity securities in the calculation of Tier 2 capital.
(d) Includes off-balance sheet risk-weighted assets in the amounts of $174.2 billion, $152.1 billion and $13.3 billion, respectively, at December 31, 2003.
(e) Tier 1 capital or total capital, as applicable, divided by risk-weighted assets. Risk-weighted assets include assets and off-balance sheet positions, weighted by the type of instruments and the risk weight
of the counterparty, collateral or guarantor.
(f) Tier 1 capital divided by adjusted average assets (net of allowance for loan losses, goodwill and certain intangible assets).
(g) As defined by the regulations issued by the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC and the OCC.
(h) Represents requirements for bank subsidiaries pursuant to regulations issued under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act. There is no Tier 1 leverage component in the definition of
a well-capitalized bank holding company.
The following table shows the components of the Firm’s Tier 1 dividends, engage in debt or equity financing transactions, or
and total capital: enter into further lease agreements. Future minimum rental pay-
ments required, under operating leases with noncancelable lease
terms that expire after December 31, 2003, were as follows:
Tier 1 capital
Common stockholders’ equity $ 45,168 $ 40,065 Year ended December 31, (in millions)
Nonredeemable preferred stock 1,009 1,009
2004 $ 805
Minority interest (a) 6,882 5,520
2005 772
Less: Goodwill and investments in certain subsidiaries 8,511 8,122
2006 695
Nonqualifying intangible assets and other 1,381 902
2007 619
Tier 1 capital $ 43,167 $ 37,570 2008 570
Tier 2 capital After 4,772
Long-term debt and other instruments Total minimum payments required 8,233
qualifying as Tier 2 $ 12,128 $ 11,801 Less: Sublease rentals under noncancelable subleases 283
Qualifying allowance for credit losses 4,777 5,458
Net minimum payment required $ 7,950
Less: Investment in certain subsidiaries 256 334
Tier 2 capital $ 16,649 $ 16,925 Total rental expense was as follows:
Total qualifying capital $ 59,816 $ 54,495
(a) Minority interest primarily includes trust preferred stocks of certain business trusts.
Gross rentals $ 1,061 $ 1,012 $ 804
Note 27 Commitments and contingencies Sublease rentals (106) (134) (135)
Net rental expense $ 955 $ 878 $ 669
At December 31, 2003, JPMorgan Chase and its subsidiaries
were obligated under a number of noncancelable operating
At December 31, 2003, assets were pledged to secure public
leases for premises and equipment used primarily for banking
deposits and for other purposes. The significant components of
purposes. Certain leases contain rent escalation clauses for real
the assets pledged were as follows:
estate taxes, they may also contain other operating expenses
and renewal option clauses calling for increased rents. No lease December 31, (in billions) 2003 2002
agreement imposes any restrictions on the Firm’s ability to pay
Reverse repurchase/securities borrowing agreements $ 197 $ 199
Securities 45 73
Loans 48 40
Other (a) 96 112
Total assets pledged $ 386 $ 424
(a) Primarily composed of trading assets.

JPMorgan Chase and its subsidiaries are named as defendants in Derivatives designated as hedges for accounting purposes must
a number of legal actions and governmental proceedings arising be considered highly effective at reducing the risk associated
in connection with their respective businesses. Additional with the exposure being hedged. Each derivative must be desig-
actions, investigations or proceedings may be brought from time nated as a hedge, with documentation of the risk management
to time in the future. In view of the inherent difficulty of pre- objective and strategy, including identification of the hedging
dicting the outcome of legal matters, particularly where the instrument, the hedged item and the risk exposure, and how
claimants seek very large or indeterminate damages or where effectiveness is to be assessed prospectively and retrospectively.
the cases present novel legal theories or involve a large number
For qualifying fair value hedges, all changes in the fair value of
of parties, the Firm cannot state with confidence what the even-
the derivative and changes in the fair value of the hedged item
tual outcome of the pending matters will be, what the timing of
for the risk being hedged are recognized in earnings. If the
the ultimate resolution of these matters will be or what the
hedge relationship is terminated, then the fair value adjustment
eventual loss related to each pending matter will be. Subject to
to the hedged item continues to be reported as part of the basis
the foregoing caveat, JPMorgan Chase anticipates, based upon
of the item and is amortized to earnings as a yield adjustment.
its current knowledge, after consultation with counsel and
For qualifying cash flow hedges, the effective portion of the
after taking into account its current litigation reserves, that the
change in the fair value of the derivative is recorded in Other
outcome of the legal actions, proceedings and investigations
comprehensive income and recognized in the income statement
currently pending against it should not have a material adverse
when the hedged cash flows affect earnings. The ineffective
effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Firm.
portions of cash flow hedges are immediately recognized in
However, the outcome of a particular proceeding or the imposi-
earnings. If the hedge relationship is terminated, then the
tion of a particular fine or penalty may be material to the Firm’s
change in fair value of the derivative recorded in Other compre-
operating results for a particular period depending upon,
hensive income is recognized when the cash flows that were
among other factors, the size of the loss or liability and the level
hedged occur, consistent with the original hedge strategy. For
of the Firm’s income for that period.
hedge relationships discontinued because the forecasted trans-
action is not expected to occur according to the original strategy,
Note 28 Accounting for derivative instruments
any related derivative amounts recorded in Other comprehensive
and hedging activities
income are immediately recognized in earnings. For qualifying
Derivative instruments enable end-users to increase, reduce or net investment hedges, changes in the fair value of the deriva-
alter exposure to credit or market risks. The value of a derivative tive or the revaluation of the foreign currency–denominated
is derived from its reference to an underlying variable or combi- debt instrument are recorded in the translation adjustments
nation of variables such as equity, foreign exchange, credit, account within Other comprehensive income.
commodity or interest rate prices or indices. JPMorgan Chase
JPMorgan Chase’s fair value hedges primarily include hedges
makes markets in derivatives for its customers, and also is an
of fixed-rate long-term debt, loans, AFS securities and MSRs.
end user of derivatives in order to manage the Firm’s exposure
Interest rate swaps are the most common type of derivative
to credit and market risks.
contract used to modify exposure to interest rate risk, convert-
SFAS 133, as amended by SFAS 138 and SFAS 149, establishes ing fixed-rate assets and liabilities to a floating rate. Interest rate
accounting and reporting standards for derivative instruments, options and swaptions are also used in combination with inter-
including derivative instruments embedded in other contracts est rate swaps to hedge the fair value of the Firm’s MSRs. For a
used for trading and hedging activities. All derivatives, whether further discussion of hedging, see Note 16 on page 108 of this
designated for hedging relationships or not, are required to Annual Report. All amounts have been included in earnings
be recorded on the balance sheet at fair value. The accounting consistent with the classification of the hedged item, primarily
for changes in value of a derivative depends on whether the Net interest income, Mortgage fees and related income and
contract is for trading purposes or has been designated and Other revenue. JPMorgan Chase did not recognize any gains or
qualifies for hedge accounting. In order to qualify for hedge losses during 2003 on firm commitments that no longer qualify
accounting, a derivative must be highly effective at reducing the as fair value hedges.
risk associated with the exposure being hedged. The majority of
JPMorgan Chase also enters into derivative contracts to hedge
JPMorgan Chase’s derivatives are entered into for trading pur-
exposure to variability in cash flows from floating-rate financial
poses. The Firm also uses derivatives as an end-user to hedge
instruments and forecasted transactions, primarily the rollover of
market exposures, modify the interest rate characteristics of
short-term assets and liabilities, foreign currency denominated
related balance sheet instruments or meet longer-term invest-
revenues and expenses and anticipated securities transactions.
ment objectives. Both trading and end-user derivatives are
Interest rate swaps, futures, options and forward contracts are the
recorded at fair value in Trading assets and Trading liabilities.
most common instruments used to reduce the impact of interest
rate and foreign exchange rate changes on future earnings. All
amounts have been included in earnings consistent with the
classification of the hedged item, primarily Net interest income.

JPMorgan Chase uses forward foreign exchange contracts and Note 29 Off-balance sheet lending-related
foreign currency–denominated debt instruments to protect the financial instruments and guarantees
value of its net investments in its non-U.S. subsidiaries in foreign
currencies. The portion of the hedging instruments excluded JPMorgan Chase utilizes lending-related financial instruments
from the assessment of hedge effectiveness (forward points) is (e.g., commitments and guarantees) to meet the financing
recorded in Net interest income. needs of its customers. The contractual amount of these finan-
cial instruments represents the maximum possible credit risk
The following table presents derivative instrument- and hedg-
should the counterparty draw down the commitment or the
ing-related activities for the period indicated:
Firm fulfill its obligation under the guarantee, and the counter-
Year ended December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002 party were to subsequently fail to perform according to the
terms of the contract. Most of these commitments and guaran-
Fair value hedge ineffective net gains(a) $ 37 $ 441
tees expire without a default occurring or without being drawn.
Cash flow hedge ineffective net losses(a) (5) (1)
As a result, the total contractual amount of these instruments is
Cash flow hedging gains on forecasted
transactions that failed to occur — — not, in the Firm’s view, representative of its actual future credit
exposure or funding requirements. Further, certain commit-
(a) Includes ineffectiveness and the components of hedging instruments that have been
excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness. ments, primarily related to consumer financings, are cancelable,
upon notice, at the option of the Firm.
Over the next 12 months, it is expected that $124 million (after-
tax) of net losses recorded in Other comprehensive income at To provide for the risk of loss inherent in commercial-related
December 31, 2003, will be recognized in earnings. The maximum contracts, an allowance for credit losses is maintained. See Note
length of time over which forecasted transactions are hedged is 12 on page 100 of this Annual Report for a further discussion of
10 years, related to core lending and borrowing activities. the Allowance for credit losses on lending-related commitments.
In 2001, the adoption of SFAS 133 resulted in an after-tax The following table summarizes the contract amounts relating
reduction to net income of $25 million and an after-tax reduc- to off–balance sheet lending-related financial instruments and
tion to Other comprehensive income of $36 million. Due to guarantees at December 31, 2003 and 2002:
SFAS 133, JPMorgan Chase changed certain hedging strategies Off-balance sheet lending-related financial instruments
and elected not to designate some derivatives utilized to man-
age economic exposure as accounting hedges. For example, to December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002
moderate its use of derivatives, the mortgage business began
Consumer-related $ 176,923 $ 151,138
using AFS securities as economic hedges of mortgage servicing Commercial-related:
rights. Changes in the fair value of credit derivatives used to Other unfunded commitments to extend credit (a)(b) $ 176,222 $ 196,654
manage the Firm’s credit risk are recorded in Trading revenue Standby letters of credit and guarantees(a) 35,332 38,848
because of the difficulties in qualifying such contracts as hedges Other letters of credit (a) 4,204 2,618
of loans and commitments. Total commercial-related $ 215,758 $ 238,120
Customers’ securities lent $ 143,143 $ 101,503
(a) Net of risk participations totaling $16.5 billion and $15.6 billion at December 31, 2003
and 2002.
(b) 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 Federal Reserve Board, unused advised lines are not reportable.
FIN 45 establishes guarantor’s accounting and disclosure require-

ments for guarantees, requiring that a guarantor recognize,
at the inception of a guarantee, a liability in an amount equal
to the fair value of the obligation undertaken in issuing the
guarantee. FIN 45 defines a guarantee as a contract that contin-
gently requires the Firm to pay a guaranteed party, based on:
(a) changes in an underlying asset, liability or equity security of
the guaranteed party, or (b) a third party’s failure to perform
under a specified agreement. The Firm considers the following
off-balance sheet lending arrangements to be guarantees under
FIN 45: certain asset purchase agreements, standby letters of
credit and financial guarantees, securities lending indemnifica-
tions, certain indemnification agreements included within
third-party contractual arrangements and certain derivative con-
tracts. These guarantees are described in further detail below.

As of January 1, 2003, newly issued or modified guarantees typically has recourse to recover from the customer any amounts
that are not derivative contracts have been recorded on the paid under these guarantees; in addition, the Firm may hold
Firm’s Consolidated balance sheet at their fair value at inception. cash or other highly liquid collateral to support these guaran-
The fair value of the obligation undertaken in issuing the guar- tees. At December 31, 2003, the Firm held collateral relating to
antee at inception is typically equal to the net present value of $7.7 billion of these arrangements. The allowance for credit
the future amount of premium receivable under the contract. losses on lending-related commitments included $167 million
The Firm has recorded this amount in Other Liabilities with an related to standby letters of credit and financial guarantees.
offsetting entry recorded in Other Assets. As cash is received
JPMorgan Chase holds customers’ securities under custodial
under the contract, it is applied to the premium receivable recorded
arrangements. At times, these securities are loaned to third
in Other Assets, and the fair value of the liability recorded at
parties, and the Firm issues securities lending indemnification
inception is amortized into income as Fees and Commissions
agreements to the customer that protect the customer against
over the life of the guarantee contract. The amount of the
the risk of loss if the third party fails to return the securities.
liability related to guarantees recorded at December 31, 2003,
To support these indemnification agreements, the Firm generally
excluding the allowance for credit losses on lending-related
obtains from the third party cash or other highly liquid collateral
commitments and derivative contracts discussed below, was
with a market value exceeding 100% of the value of the loaned
approximately $59 million.
securities. At December 31, 2003, the Firm held $146.7 billion
Unfunded commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend in collateral in support of these agreements.
only when a customer has complied with predetermined condi-
In connection with issuing securities to investors, the Firm may
tions, and they generally expire on fixed dates. The allowance
enter into contractual arrangements with third parties that may
for credit losses on commercial lending-related commitments
require the Firm to make a payment to them in the event of a
includes $155 million at December 31, 2003, related to unfunded
change in tax law or an adverse interpretation of tax law. In
commitments to extend credit. The majority of the Firm’s
certain cases, the contract may also include a termination clause,
unfunded commitments are not guarantees as defined in FIN
which would allow the Firm to settle the contract at its fair
45, except for certain asset purchase agreements of $21 billion
value, thus, such a clause would not require the Firm to make
at December 31, 2003. These agreements are primarily used as
a payment under the indemnification agreement. Even without
a mechanism to provide liquidity to SPEs. Of the $21 billion of
the termination clause, management does not expect such
asset purchase agreements at December 31, 2003, $18 billion
indemnification agreements to have a material adverse effect
related to multi-seller conduits and structured commercial loan
on the consolidated financial condition of JPMorgan Chase.
vehicles described in Note 14 on pages 103-106 of this Annual
The Firm may also enter into indemnification clauses when it
Report. It does not include $6 billion of asset purchase agree-
sells a business or assets to a third party, pursuant to which it
ments to multi-seller asset-backed commercial paper conduits
indemnifies that third party for losses they may incur due to
consolidated in accordance with FIN 46 at December 31, 2003,
actions taken by the Firm prior to the sale. See below for more
as the underlying assets of the conduits are reported on the
information regarding the Firm’s loan securitization activities.
Consolidated balance sheet.
It is difficult to estimate the Firm’s maximum exposure under
Certain asset purchase agreements can be exercised at any these indemnification arrangements, since this would require
time by the SPE’s administrator, while others require a triggering an assessment of future changes in tax laws and future claims
event to occur. Triggering events include, but are not limited to, that may be made against the Firm that have not yet occurred.
a need for liquidity, a market value decline of the assets or a However, based on historical experience, management expects
downgrade in the rating of JPMorgan Chase Bank. These agree- the risk of loss to be remote.
ments may cause the Firm to purchase an asset from the SPE at
As part of the Firm’s loan securitization activities, as described
an amount above the asset’s fair value, in effect providing a
in Note 13 on pages 100-103 of this Annual Report, the Firm
guarantee of the initial value of the reference asset as of the
provides representations and warranties that certain securitized
date of the agreement. In most instances, third-party credit
loans meet specific requirements. The Firm may be required to
enhancements of the SPE mitigate the Firm’s potential losses on
repurchase the loans and/or indemnify the purchaser of the loans
these agreements. The allowance for credit losses on commer-
against losses due to any breaches of such representations or
cial lending-related commitments related to these agreements
warranties. Generally, the maximum amount of future payments
was insignificant at December 31, 2003.
the Firm would be required to make under such repurchase
Standby letters of credit and financial guarantees are conditional and/or indemnification provisions would be equal to the current
lending commitments issued by JPMorgan Chase to guarantee amount of assets held by such securitization-related SPEs as of
the performance of a customer to a third party under certain December 31, 2003, plus, in certain circumstances, accrued and
arrangements, such as commercial paper facilities, bond financ- unpaid interest on such loans and certain expenses. The potential
ings, acquisition financings and similar transactions. More than loss due to such repurchase and/or indemnity is mitigated by the
80% of these arrangements mature within three years. The Firm due diligence the Firm performs to ensure that the assets comply

with the requirements set forth in the representations and war- fair value. These contracts include written put options that
ranties. Historically, losses incurred on such repurchases and/or require the Firm to purchase assets from the option holder at
indemnifications have been insignificant, and therefore manage- a specified price by a specified date in the future, as well as
ment expects the risk of material loss to be remote. derivatives that effectively guarantee the return on a counter-
party’s reference portfolio of assets. The total notional value
In connection with Chase Cardmember Services, the Firm is a
of the derivatives that the Firm deems to be guarantees was
50% partner with one of the leading companies in electronic
$50 billion at December 31, 2003. The Firm reduces its expo-
payment services in a joint venture, known as Chase Merchant
sures to these contracts by entering into offsetting transactions
Services (the “joint venture”) that provides merchant processing
or by entering into contracts that hedge the market risk related
services in the United States. The joint venture is contingently
to these contracts. The fair value related to these contracts was
liable for processed credit card sales transactions in the event of
a derivative receivable of $163 million and a derivative payable
a dispute between the cardmember and a merchant. If a dispute
of $333 million at December 31, 2003.
is resolved in the cardmember’s favor, the joint venture will cred-
it or refund the amount to the cardmember and charge back Finally, certain written put options and credit derivatives permit
the transaction to the merchant. If the joint venture is unable cash settlement and do not require the option holder or the
to collect the amount from the merchant, the joint venture will buyer of credit protection to own the reference asset. The Firm
bear the loss for the amount credited or refunded to the card- does not consider these contracts to be guarantees as described
member. The joint venture mitigates this risk by withholding in FIN 45.
settlement or obtaining escrow deposits from certain merchants.
However, in the unlikely event that: 1) a merchant ceases Note 30 Credit risk concentrations
operations and is unable to deliver products, services or a
refund; 2) the joint venture does not have sufficient withhold- Concentrations of credit risk arise when a number of customers
ings or escrow deposits to provide customer refunds; and are engaged in similar business activities or activities in the same
3) the joint venture does not have sufficient financial resources geographic region, or when they have similar economic features
to provide customer refunds, the Firm would be liable to refund that would cause their ability to meet contractual obligations to
the cardholder in proportion to its equity interest in the joint be similarly affected by changes in economic conditions.
venture. For the year ended December 31, 2003, the joint
JPMorgan Chase regularly monitors various segments of its
venture incurred aggregate credit losses of $2.0 million on
credit risk portfolio to assess potential concentration risks and
$260 billion of aggregate volume processed. At December 31,
to obtain collateral when deemed necessary. In the Firm’s com-
2003, the joint venture held $242 million of collateral. The Firm
mercial portfolio, risk concentrations are primarily evaluated by
believes that, based on historical experience and the collateral
industry, and also by geographic region. In the consumer portfo-
held by the joint venture, the fair value of the guarantee would
lio, concentrations are primarily evaluated by product, and by
not be materially different from the credit loss allowance recorded
U.S. geographic region.
by the joint venture; therefore, the Firm has not recorded any
allowance for losses in excess of the allowance recorded by the For further information regarding on–balance sheet credit con-
joint venture. centrations by major product and geography, see Note 11 on
page 99 of this Annual Report. For information regarding
The Firm is a member of several securities and futures
concentrations of off–balance sheet lending-related financial
exchanges and clearinghouses both in the United States and
instruments by major product, see Note 29 on page 117 of this
overseas. Membership in some of these organizations requires
Annual Report. More information about concentrations can be
the Firm to pay a pro rata share of the losses incurred by the
found in the following tables in the MD&A:
organization as a result of the default of another member. Such
obligation varies with different organizations. It may be limited
to members who dealt with the defaulting member or to the Commercial exposure Page 55
amount (or a multiple of the amount) of the Firm’s contribution Commercial selected industry concentrations Page 56
to a members’ guaranty fund, or, in a few cases, it may be Selected country exposure Page 58
unlimited. It is difficult to estimate the Firm’s maximum exposure Geographic region:
under these membership agreements, since this would require 1–4 Family residential mortgage loans Page 62
an assessment of future claims that may be made against the Managed credit card loans Page 62
Automobile financings Page 62
Firm that have not yet occurred. However, based on historical
experience, management expects the risk of loss to be remote.
In addition to the contracts described above, there are certain

derivative contracts to which the Firm is a counterparty that
meet the characteristics of a guarantee under FIN 45. These
derivatives are recorded on the Consolidated balance sheet at

The table below presents both on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet commercial- and consumer-related credit exposure as of
December 31, 2003 and 2002:
2003 2002
Credit On-balance Off-balance Credit On-balance Off-balance
December 31, (in billions) exposure sheet (a) sheet (b) exposure sheet (a) sheet (b)
Commercial-related:
Commercial banks $ 47.1 $ 36.5 $ 10.6 $ 42.2 $ 33.7 $ 8.5
Asset managers 21.8 11.7 10.1 24.9 12.3 12.6
Securities firms and exchanges 15.6 9.3 6.3 17.5 11.7 5.8
Finance companies and lessors 15.6 3.1 12.5 19.0 4.1 14.9
Utilities 15.3 3.7 11.6 17.7 6.4 11.3
All other commercial 267.3 102.7 164.6 291.6 106.6 185.0
Total commercial-related $ 382.7 $ 167.0 $ 215.7 $ 412.9 $ 174.8 $ 238.1
Consumer-related:
Credit cards (c) $ 157.9 $ 16.8 $ 141.1 $ 143.1 $ 19.7 $ 123.4
1–4 family residential mortgages 102.5 73.7 28.8 84.0 64.0 20.0
Automobile financings 41.3 38.7 2.6 35.4 33.6 1.8
All other consumer 11.6 7.2 4.4 13.4 7.5 5.9
Total consumer-related $ 313.3 $ 136.4 $ 176.9 $ 275.9 $ 124.8 $ 151.1
Total exposure $ 696.0 $ 303.4 $ 392.6 $ 688.8 $ 299.6 $ 389.2
(a) Represents loans, and derivative and other receivables.
(b) Represents lending-related financial instruments.
(c) Excludes $34.9 billion and $30.7 billion of securitized credit card receivables at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
Note 31 Fair value of financial instruments Valuation adjustments include amounts to reflect counterparty
credit quality, liquidity and concentration concerns and are based
The fair value of a financial instrument is the amount at which on defined methodologies that are applied consistently over time.
the instrument could be exchanged in a current transaction
• Credit valuation adjustments are necessary when the market
between willing parties, other than in a forced or liquidation sale.
price (or parameter) is not indicative of the credit quality of
The accounting for an asset or liability may differ based on the the counterparty. As few derivative contracts are listed on
type of instrument and/or its use in a trading or investing strategy. an exchange, the majority of derivative positions are valued
Generally, the measurement framework recorded in financial using internally developed models that use as their basis
statements is one of the following: observable market parameters. Market practice is to quote
parameters equivalent to a AA credit rating: thus, all coun-
• at fair value on the Consolidated balance sheet, with terparties are assumed to have the same credit quality. An
changes in fair value recorded each period in the adjustment is therefore necessary to reflect the credit quality
Consolidated statement of income of each derivative counterparty and to arrive at fair value.
• at fair value on the Consolidated balance sheet, with Without this adjustment, derivative positions would not be
changes in fair value recorded each period in a separate appropriately valued.
component of stockholders’ equity and as part of Other • Liquidity adjustments are necessary when the Firm may
comprehensive income not be able to observe a recent market price for a financial
• at cost (less other-than-temporary impairments), with instrument that trades in inactive (or less active) markets.
changes in fair value not recorded in the financial statements Thus, valuation adjustments for risk of loss due to a lack of
but disclosed in the notes thereto liquidity are applied to those positions to arrive at fair value.
The Firm tries to ascertain the amount of uncertainty in the
• at the lower of cost or fair value. initial valuation based upon the liquidity or illiquidity, as the
case may be, of the market in which the instrument trades
The Firm has a well-established and well-documented process
and makes liquidity adjustments to the financial instruments.
for determining fair values. Fair value is based on quoted market
The Firm measures the liquidity adjustment based on the
prices, where available. If listed prices or quotes are not available,
following factors: (1) the amount of time since the last rele-
fair value is based on internally developed models that primarily
vant pricing point; (2) whether there was an actual trade or
use market-based or independent information as inputs to the
relevant external quote; and (3) the volatility of the principal
valuation model. Valuation adjustments may be necessary to
component of the financial instrument.
ensure that financial instruments are recorded at fair value.

• Concentration valuation adjustments are necessary to reflect Assets where fair value differs from cost
the cost of unwinding larger-than-normal market size risk
positions. The cost is determined based on the size of the JPMorgan Chase’s debt, equity and derivative trading instru-
adverse market move that is likely to occur during the ments are carried at their estimated fair value. Quoted market
extended period required to bring a position down to a non- prices, when available, are used to determine the fair value of
concentrated level. An estimate of the period needed to trading instruments. If quoted market prices are not available,
reduce, without market disruption, a position to a noncon- then fair values are estimated by using pricing models, quoted
centrated level is generally based on the relationship of the prices of instruments with similar characteristics or discounted
position to the average daily trading volume of that position. cash flows.
Without these adjustments, larger positions would be valued Federal funds sold and securities purchased under
at a price greater than the price at which the Firm could exit resale agreements
the positions.
Federal funds sold and securities purchased under resale agree-
Valuation adjustments are determined based on established poli- ments are typically short-term in nature, and as such, for a
cies and are controlled by a price verification group independent significant majority of the Firm’s transactions, cost approximates
of the risk-taking function. Economic substantiation of models, carrying value. This balance sheet item also includes structured
prices, market inputs and revenue through price/input testing, resale agreements and similar products with long-dated maturi-
as well as backtesting, is done to validate the appropriateness ties. To estimate the fair value of these instruments, the cash
of the valuation methodology. Any changes to the valuation flows are discounted using the appropriate market rates for the
methodology are reviewed by management to ensure the changes applicable maturity.
are justified.
Securities
The methods described above may produce a fair value calcula-
tion that may not be indicative of net realizable value or reflec- Fair values of actively traded securities are determined by the
tive of future fair values. Furthermore, the use of different secondary market, while the fair values for nonactively traded
methodologies to determine the fair value of certain financial securities are based on independent broker quotations.
instruments could result in a different estimate of fair value at
Derivatives
the reporting date.
Fair value for derivatives is determined based on the following:
Certain financial instruments and all nonfinancial instruments
are excluded from the scope of SFAS 107. Accordingly, the fair • position valuation, principally based on liquid market pricing
value disclosures required by SFAS 107 provide only a partial as evidenced by exchange-traded prices, broker-dealer
estimate of the fair value of JPMorgan Chase. For example, the quotations or related input parameters which assume all
Firm has developed long-term relationships with its customers counterparties have the same credit rating;
through its deposit base and credit card accounts, commonly
referred to as core deposit intangibles and credit card relation- • credit valuation adjustments to the resulting portfolio valua-
ships. In the opinion of management, these items, in the aggre- tion, to reflect the credit quality of individual counterparties;
gate, add significant value to JPMorgan Chase, but their fair and
value is not disclosed in this Note.
• other fair value adjustments to take into consideration
The following captions describe the methodologies and assump- liquidity, concentration and other factors.
tions used, by financial instrument, to determine fair value.
Loans
Financial assets Fair value for loans is determined using methodologies suitable
Assets for which fair value for each type of loan:
approximates carrying value • Fair value for the commercial loan portfolio is based on the
The Firm considers fair values of certain financial assets carried assessment of the two main risk components of the portfo-
at cost – including cash and due from banks, deposits with lio: credit and interest. The cost of credit derivatives is used
banks, securities borrowed, short-term receivables and accrued to estimate the fair value of commercial loans.
interest receivable – to approximate their respective carrying
values, due to their short-term nature and generally negligible
credit risk.

• Fair values for consumer installment loans (including auto- Interest-bearing deposits
mobile financings) and 1–4 family residential mortgages, for
which market rates for comparable loans are readily avail- Fair values of interest-bearing deposits are estimated by dis-
able, are based on discounted cash flows, adjusted for pre- counting cash flows based on the remaining contractual maturi-
payments. The discount rates used for consumer installment ties of funds having similar interest rates and similar maturities.
loans are current rates offered by commercial banks. For 1–4 Federal funds purchased and securities sold under
family residential mortgages, secondary market yields for com- repurchase agreements
parable mortgage-backed securities, adjusted for risk, are used.
Federal funds purchased and securities sold under repurchase
• Fair value for credit card receivables is based on discounted agreements are typically short-term in nature, and as such, for a
expected cash flows. The discount rates used for credit card significant majority of the Firm’s transactions, cost approximates
receivables incorporate only the effects of interest rate carrying value. This balance sheet item also includes structured
changes, since the expected cash flows already reflect an repurchase agreements and similar products with long-dated
adjustment for credit risk. maturities. To estimate the fair value of these instruments, the
• The fair value of loans in the held-for-sale and trading port- cash flows are discounted using the appropriate market rates
folios is generally based on observable market prices and for the applicable maturity.
prices of similar instruments, including bonds, credit deriva- Beneficial interests issued by consolidated VIEs
tives and loans with similar characteristics. Otherwise, if
market prices are not available, the fair value is based on Beneficial interests issued by consolidated VIEs (“beneficial
the estimated cash flows adjusted for credit risk; that risk is interests”) are generally short-term in nature, and as such, for
discounted, using a rate appropriate for each maturity that a significant majority of the Firm’s transactions, cost approxi-
incorporates the effects of interest rate changes. mates carrying value. The Consolidated balance sheet also
includes beneficial interests with long-dated maturities. The fair
Other assets value of these instruments is based on current market rates.
This caption includes private equity investments and MSRs. Long-term debt-related instruments
For a discussion of the fair value methodology for private equity Fair value for long-term debt, including the guaranteed preferred
investments, see Note 15 on page 106 of this Annual Report. beneficial interests in the Firm’s junior subordinated deferrable
For a discussion of the fair value methodology for MSRs, see interest debentures, is based on current market rates and is
Note 16 on pages 107-109 of this Annual Report. adjusted for JPMorgan Chase’s credit quality.
Lending-related commitments
Financial liabilities
The Firm estimates the fair value of its commercial commitments
Liabilities for which fair value approximates
to extend credit based on the cost of credit derivatives. The Firm
carrying value
estimates the fair value of its consumer commitments to extend
SFAS 107 requires that the fair value disclosed for deposit liabili- credit based on the primary market prices to originate new com-
ties with no stated maturity (i.e., demand, savings and certain mitments. It is the change in current primary market prices that
money market deposits) be equal to their carrying value. SFAS provides the estimate of the fair value of these commitments.
107 does not allow for the recognition of the inherent funding
value of these instruments. On this basis, at December 31, 2003, the fair value of the Firm’s
lending-related commitments approximated the Allowance for
Fair value of commercial paper, other borrowed funds, accounts lending-related commitments of $324 million. At December 31,
payable and accrued liabilities is considered to approximate their 2002, the fair value of the Firm’s lending-related commitments
respective carrying values due to their short-term nature. was approximately $1.3 billion, compared with the Allowance
for lending-related commitments of $363 million.

The following table presents the carrying value and estimated fair value of financial assets and liabilities valued under SFAS 107.
Accordingly, certain amounts which are not considered financial instruments are excluded from the table.
2003 2002
Carrying Estimated Appreciation/ Carrying Estimated Appreciation/

December 31, (in billions) value fair value (depreciation) value fair value (depreciation)
Financial assets
Assets for which fair value approximates carrying value $ 84.6 $ 84.6 $ — $ 76.4 $ 76.4 $ —
Federal funds sold and securities purchased under resale agreements 76.9 77.2 0.3 65.8 66.0 0.2
Trading assets 252.9 252.9 — 248.3 248.3 —
Securities available-for-sale 60.1 60.1 — 84.0 84.0 —
Securities held-to-maturity 0.2 0.2 — 0.4 0.4 —
Loans:
Commercial, net of allowance for loan losses 80.8 82.1 1.3 88.6 88.7(a) 0.1
Consumer, net of allowance for loan losses 134.2 135.4 1.2 122.4 124.7 2.3
Other assets 61.0 61.5 0.5 53.3 53.5 0.2
Total financial assets $ 750.7 $ 754.0 $ 3.3 $ 739.2 $ 742.0 $ 2.8
Financial liabilities
Liabilities for which fair value approximates carrying value $ 146.6 $ 146.6 $ — $ 145.1 $ 145.1 $ —
Interest-bearing deposits 247.0 247.1 (0.1) 222.7 223.1 (0.4)
Federal funds purchased and securities sold under repurchase agreements 113.5 113.6 (0.1) 169.5 169.5 —
Trading liabilities 149.4 149.4 — 133.1 133.1 —
Beneficial interests issued by consolidated VIEs 12.3 12.3 — — — —
Long-term debt-related instruments 54.8 57.0 (2.2) 45.2 45.5 (0.3)
Total financial liabilities $ 723.6 $ 726.0 $ (2.4) $ 715.6 $ 716.3 $ (0.7)
Net appreciation $ 0.9 $ 2.1
(a) The fair value has been revised to reflect current valuation methodologies.

International operations As the Firm’s operations are highly integrated, estimates and
Note 32
subjective assumptions have been made to apportion revenue
The following table presents income statement information of and expense between U.S. and international operations. The
JPMorgan Chase by major geographic areas. The Firm defines estimates and assumptions used to apportion revenue and
international activities as business transactions that involve cus- expense are consistent with the allocations used for JPMorgan
tomers residing outside the United States, and the information Chase’s segment reporting as set forth in Note 34 on pages
presented below is based primarily on the domicile of the cus- 126-127 of this Annual Report.
tomer. However, many of the Firm’s U.S. operations serve inter-
The Firm’s long-lived assets for the periods presented are not
national businesses.
considered by management to be significant in relation to total
assets. The majority of the Firm’s long-lived assets are located in
the United States.
Income (loss) Net
For the year ended December 31, (in millions) Revenue(a) Expense(b) before income taxes income (loss)
2003
Europe/Middle East and Africa $ 6,324 $ 3,940 $ 2,384 $ 1,530
Asia and Pacific 1,906 1,750 156 111
Latin America and the Caribbean 856 361 495 303
Other 52 15 37 22
Total international 9,138 6,066 3,072 1,966
Total U.S. 24,118 17,162 6,956 4,753
Total $ 33,256 $ 23,228 $ 10,028 $ 6,719
2002
Europe/Middle East and Africa $ 5,120 $ 4,882 $ 238 $ 157
Asia and Pacific 1,900 1,820 80 53
Latin America and the Caribbean 685 557 128 85
Other 42 34 8 5
Total international 7,747 7,293 454 300
Total U.S. 21,867 19,802(c) 2,065 1,363
Total $ 29,614 $ 27,095 $ 2,519 $ 1,663
2001
Europe/Middle East and Africa $ 6,725 $ 5,128 $ 1,597 $ 1,054
Asia and Pacific 1,934 2,229 (295) (195)
Latin America and the Caribbean 686 703 (17) (11)
Other 43 38 5 3
Total international 9,388 8,098 1,290 851
Total U.S. 19,956 18,680 1,276 843
Total $ 29,344 $ 26,778 $ 2,566 $ 1,694
(a) Revenue is composed of Net interest income and noninterest revenue.

(b) Expense is composed of Noninterest expense and Provision for credit losses. The amounts include an allocation of Merger and restructuring costs.
(c) Includes the $1.3 billion (pre-tax) charge related to the settlement of the Enron surety litigation and the establishment of a litigation reserve for certain material litigation, proceedings and investigations.

Note 33 Parent company Parent company – statement of cash flows
Parent company – statement of income
Operating activities
Year ended December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002 2001 Net income $ 6,719 $ 1,663 $ 1,694
Less: Net income of subsidiaries 7,017 1,971 2,096
Income
Dividends from bank and bank Parent company net loss (298) (308) (402)
holding company subsidiaries (a) $ 2,436 $ 3,079 $ 2,650 Add: Cash dividends from subsidiaries(a) 5,098 2,320 10,554
Dividends from nonbank subsidiaries (a)(b) 2,688 422 7,904 Other, net (272) (912) (926)
Interest income from subsidiaries 945 1,174 2,090 Net cash provided by operating activities 4,528 1,100 9,226
Other interest income 130 148 70
Other income from subsidiaries, primarily fees: Investing activities
Bank and bank holding company 632 277 96 Net change in:
Nonbank 385 390 287 Deposits with banking subsidiaries (2,560) (3,755) 2,557
Other income (25) 264 110 Securities purchased under
resale agreements, primarily with
Total income 7,191 5,754 13,207 nonbank subsidiaries 99 (40) 953
Expense Loans (490) (27) 24
Interest expense to subsidiaries (b) 422 405 491 Advances to subsidiaries (3,165) 6,172 3,931
Other interest expense 1,329 1,511 2,436 Investment (at equity) in subsidiaries (2,052) (2,284) (5,303)
Compensation expense 348 378 244 Other, net 12 (37) —
Other noninterest expense 747 699 282 Available-for-sale securities:
Purchases (607) (1,171) (1,643)
Total expense 2,846 2,993 3,453 Proceeds from sales and maturities 654 1,877 14
Income before income tax benefit and Net cash (used in) provided by
undistributed net income of subsidiaries 4,345 2,761 9,754 investing activities (8,109) 735 533
Income tax benefit 474 432 394
Equity in undistributed net income (loss) Financing activities
of subsidiaries 1,900 (1,530) (8,458) Net change in borrowings from
subsidiaries(b) 2,005 573 (526)
Income before effect of accounting change 6,719 1,663 1,690 Net change in other borrowed funds (2,104) (915) (3,272)
Net effect of change in accounting principle — — 4 Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt 12,105 12,533 7,258
Net income $ 6,719 $ 1,663 $ 1,694 Repayments of long-term debt (6,733) (12,271) (10,184)
Proceeds from the issuance of stock and
stock-related awards 1,213 725 1,429
Parent company – balance sheet Treasury stock purchased — — (871)
December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002 Cash dividends paid (2,865) (2,784) (2,697)
Net cash provided by (used in)
Assets financing activities 3,621 (2,139) (9,374)
Cash with banks $ 148 $ 108
Net increase (decrease) in cash with banks 40 (304) 385
Deposits with banking subsidiaries 12,554 9,994
Cash with banks at the beginning of the year 108 412 27
Securities purchased under resale agreements,
primarily with nonbank subsidiaries 285 384 Cash with banks at the end of the year,
Trading assets 3,915 4,087 primarily, with bank subsidiaries $ 148 $ 108 $ 412
Available-for-sale securities 2,099 1,081 Cash interest paid $ 1,918 $ 1,829 $ 2,950
Loans 550 60
Cash income taxes paid (refund received) $ 754 $ 592 $ (250)
Advances to, and receivables from, subsidiaries:
Bank and bank holding company 9,239 9,521 (a) Dividends in 2002 include a stock dividend of $1.2 billion from the mortgage business, which
Nonbank 24,489 21,094 was contributed to JPMorgan Chase Bank. Cash dividends in 2001 include funds from Robert
Investment (at equity) in subsidiaries: Fleming Holdings Limited and The Beacon Group, LLC.
(b) Subsidiaries include trusts that issued guaranteed capital debt securities (“issuer trusts”). As a
Bank and bank holding company 43,853 40,709
result of FIN 46, the Parent deconsolidated these trusts. In 2003, the Parent received dividends
Nonbank (b) 10,399 10,826 of $11 million from the issuer trusts. For a further discussion on issuer trusts, see Note 18 on
Goodwill and other intangibles 860 863 pages 110-111 of this Annual Report.
Other assets 9,213 8,681 (c) At December 31, 2003, all debt that contractually matures in 2004 through 2008 totaled $5.8
billion, $7.8 billion, $4.6 billion, $6.4 billion and $4.5 billion, respectively.
Total assets $ 117,604 $ 107,408
Liabilities and stockholders’ equity
Borrowings from, and payables to, subsidiaries(b) $ 9,488 $ 7,483
Other borrowed funds, primarily commercial paper 16,560 17,587
Other liabilities 4,767 4,937
Long-term debt(c) 40,635 35,095
Total liabilities 71,450 65,102
Stockholders’ equity 46,154 42,306
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity $ 117,604 $ 107,408

Note 34 Segment information Operating revenue and expense directly associated with each
segment are included in determining the segment’s operating
JPMorgan Chase is organized into five major businesses. These earnings. Guidelines exist for allocating to the segments expenses
businesses are segmented based on the products and services that are not directly incurred by them, such as corporate over-
provided, or the type of customer served, and reflect the man- head. In addition, management has developed a risk-adjusted
ner in which financial information is evaluated by management. capital methodology that quantifies the different types of risk –
credit, market, operational, business and private equity – within
JPMorgan Chase uses shareholder value added (“SVA”) and the various businesses and assigns capital accordingly. Each
operating earnings as its principal measures of segment business segment is responsible for its credit costs, including
profitability. For a definition of these measurements, see the actual net charge-offs and changes in the specific and
Glossary of terms on pages 130-131 of this Annual Report.
Segment results and reconciliation (table continued on next page)

Treasury & Investment Management
Investment Bank Securities Services & Private Banking
(in millions, except ratios) 2003 2002 2001 2003 2002 2001 2003 2002 2001
Operating net interest income $ 2,277 $ 2,642 $ 2,978 $ 1,219 $ 1,224 $ 1,302 $ 467 $ 446 $ 549
Operating noninterest revenue 12,355 9,988 11,916 2,586 2,481 2,289 2,348 2,263 2,531
Equity-related income (b) (1) (2) (8) — — — 1 1 —
Intersegment revenue (c) (191) (130) (139) 187 187 211 62 129 109
Total operating revenue 14,440 12,498 14,747 3,992 3,892 3,802 2,878 2,839 3,189
Total operating expense 8,470 8,012 8,789 3,217 2,994 2,961 2,428 2,346 2,566
Operating margin 5,970 4,486 5,958 775 898 841 450 493 623
Credit costs (181) 2,393 1,160 1 1 7 35 85 36
Corporate credit allocation(d) (36) (82) (94) 36 82 94 — — —
Operating earnings (loss) before taxes 6,115 2,011 4,704 810 979 928 415 408 587
Income taxes (benefit) 2,430 708 1,847 290 358 335 147 147 229
Operating earnings (loss) 3,685 1,303 2,857 520 621 593 268 261 358
Merger and restructuring costs
and special items (e)
Pre-SFAS 142 goodwill amortization (e)
Net income (loss) $ 3,685 $ 1,303 $ 2,857 $ 520 $ 621 $ 593 $ 268 $ 261 $ 358
Average allocated capital $ 19,134 $ 19,915 $ 20,286 $ 2,711 $ 2,688 $ 2,859 $ 5,454 $ 5,643 $ 5,781
Average managed assets (f) 510,894 495,464 510,676 18,993 17,780 18,552 33,685 35,729 36,896
Shareholder value added 1,368 (1,109) 392 192 296 247 (394) (423) (344)
Return on allocated capital 19% 6% 14% 19% 23% 21% 5% 5% 6%
Overhead ratio 59 64 60 81 77 78 84 83 80
(a) Corporate/reconciling items includes Support Units and Corporate and the net effect of management accounting policies.
(b) Equity-related income includes equity income of investees accounted for by the equity method.
(c) Intersegment revenue includes intercompany revenue and revenue-sharing agreements, net of intersegment expenses. Transactions between business segments are primarily conducted at
fair value.
(d) Represents an allocation of pre-tax earnings related to certain credit exposures managed within IB’s credit portfolio on behalf of clients shared with TSS.
(e) Represents the after-tax amounts.
(f) Includes credit card receivables that have been securitized. The impact of securitizations on total average assets was $32.4 billion in 2003, $26.5 billion in 2002 and $18.0 billion in 2001.

expected components of the Allowance for credit losses. The application of management accounting policies, including
residual component of the Allowance for credit losses, available income tax expenses (the difference between the amounts allo-
for losses in any business segment, is maintained at the corpo- cated to business units and JPMorgan Chase’s consolidated
rate level. income tax expense).
A summary of the business segment results is shown in the For a further discussion concerning JPMorgan Chase’s business
following table. The Corporate/reconciling items column reflects segments, see Segment results in the MD&A on pages 27-44 of
revenue and expense excluded from the determination of the this Annual Report. Additionally, financial information relating to
segments’ operating earnings. This column includes the JPMorgan Chase’s operations by geographic area is provided in
accounting effects remaining at the corporate level after the Note 32 on page 124 of this Annual Report.
(table continued from previous page)
Corporate/
JPMorgan Partners Chase Financial Services reconciling items(a) Total
2003 2002 2001 2003 2002 2001 2003 2002 2001 2003 2002 2001
$ (264) $ (302) $ (302) $ 9,620 $ 8,225 $ 6,765 $ (522) $ (416) $ (446) $ 12,797 $ 11,819 $ 10,846
70 (658) (1,151) 5,000 5,198 4,072 (132) (112) (146) 22,227 19,160 19,511
— (2) (1) 2 13 (2) 100 64 46 102 74 35
4 (14) (9) 10 (10) (7) (72) (162) (165) — — —
(190) (976) (1,463) 14,632 13,426 10,828 (626) (626) (711) 35,126 31,053 30,392
275 299 294 7,264 6,578 5,693 34 (73) 185 21,688 20,156 20,488
(465) (1,275) (1,757) 7,368 6,848 5,135 (660) (553) (896) 13,438 10,897 9,904
— — — 3,431 3,159 2,874 124 132 153 3,410 5,770 4,230
— — — — — — — — — — — —
(465) (1,275) (1,757) 3,937 3,689 2,261 (784) (685) (1,049) 10,028 5,127 5,674
(172) (467) (641) 1,442 1,369 847 (828) (372) (745) 3,309 1,743 1,872
(293) (808) (1,116) 2,495 2,320 1,414 44 (313) (304) 6,719 3,384 3,802
NA (1,721) (1,715) NA (1,721) (1,715)

NA NA (393) NA NA (393)
$ (293) $ (808) $(1,116) $ 2,495 $ 2,320 $ 1,414 $ 44 $ (2,034) $ (2,412) $ 6,719 $ 1,663 $ 1,694
$ 5,789 $ 6,293 $ 7,557 $ 8,750 $ 8,612 $ 7,733 $ 1,150 $ (1,783) $ (2,692) $ 42,988 $ 41,368 $ 41,524
8,818 9,677 11,698 215,216 179,635 162,980 20,737 21,591 13,146 808,343 759,876 753,948
(1,169) (1,759) (2,262) 1,434 1,276 475 78 88 245 1,509 (1,631) (1,247)
NM NM NM 28% 27% 18% NM NM NM 16% 8% 9%
NM NM NM 50 49 53 NM NM NM 62 65 67
The tables below present reconciliations of the combined segment information included in the preceding table to JPMorgan Chase’s
reported revenue and net income as included in the Consolidated statement of income on page 82 of this Annual Report.
Year ended December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002 2001 Year ended December 31, (in millions) 2003 2002 2001
Segments’ operating revenue $ 35,752 $ 31,679 $ 31,103 Segments’ operating earnings $ 6,675 $ 3,697 $ 4,106
Corporate / reconciling items (626) (626) (711) Corporate / reconciling items 44 (313) (304)
Consolidated operating revenue 35,126 31,053 30,392 Consolidated operating earnings 6,719 3,384 3,802
Impact of securitizations (1,870) (1,439) (1,048) Merger and restructuring costs
and special items(a) NA (1,721) (1,715)
Consolidated revenue $ 33,256 $ 29,614 $ 29,344
Pre-SFAS 142 goodwill amortization(a) NA NA (393)
Consolidated net income $ 6,719 $ 1,663 $ 1,694
(a) Represents the after-tax amounts.

Supplementary information
Selected quarterly financial data
(unaudited)
As of or for the period ended 2003 2002
(in millions, except per share and ratio data) 4th 3rd 2nd 1st 4th 3rd 2nd 1st
REPORTED BASIS
Revenue $ 8,068 $ 7,748 $ 9,034 $ 8,406 $ 7,495 $ 6,947 $ 7,574 $ 7,598
Noninterest expense
(excluding merger and restructuring costs) 5,220 5,095 5,832 5,541 6,768 (a) 4,718 4,965 5,103
Merger and restructuring costs — — — — 393 333 229 255
Provision for credit losses 139 223 435 743 921 1,836 821 753
Income tax expense (benefit) 845 802 940 722 (200) 20 531 505
Net income (loss) $ 1,864 $ 1,628 $ 1,827 $ 1,400 $ (387) $ 40 $ 1,028 $ 982
Per Common Share:
Net income (loss) per share:
Basic $ 0.92 $ 0.80 $ 0.90 $ 0.69 $ (0.20) $ 0.01 $ 0.51 $ 0.49
Diluted 0.89 0.78 0.89 0.69 (0.20) 0.01 0.50 0.48
Cash dividends declared 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34
Book value at period-end 22.10 21.55 21.53 20.73 20.66 21.26 20.93 20.16
Performance Ratios:
Return on average assets 0.95% 0.83% 0.96% 0.73% NM 0.02% 0.56% 0.55%
Return on average common equity 17 15 17 13 NM NM 10 10
Capital Ratios:
Tier 1 capital ratio 8.5% 8.7% 8.4% 8.4% 8.2% 8.7% 8.8% 8.6%
Total capital ratio 11.8 12.1 12.0 12.2 12.0 12.4 12.7 12.5
Tier 1 leverage ratio 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.1 5.4 5.4 5.4
Selected Balance Sheet Items:
Net loans $214,995 $231,448 $222,307 $212,256 $211,014 $ 206,215 $ 207,080 $209,541
Total assets 770,912 792,700 802,603 755,156 758,800 741,759 740,546 712,508
Deposits 326,492 313,626 318,248 300,667 304,753 292,171 293,829 282,037
Long-term debt (b) 54,782 50,661 49,918 48,290 45,190 44,552 47,802 42,761
Common stockholders’ equity 45,145 43,948 43,812 42,075 41,297 42,428 41,727 40,122
Total stockholders’ equity 46,154 44,957 44,821 43,084 42,306 43,437 42,736 41,131
Share price (c)

High $ 36.99 $ 38.26 $ 36.52 $ 28.29 $ 26.14 $ 33.68 $ 38.75 $ 39.68
Low 34.45 32.40 23.75 20.13 15.26 17.86 30.15 26.70
Close 36.73 34.33 34.18 23.71 24.00 18.99 33.92 35.65
OPERATING BASIS (d)

Revenue $ 8,530 $ 8,219 $ 9,514 $ 8,863 $ 7,925 $ 7,301 $ 7,908 $ 7,919
Expense 5,220 5,095 5,832 5,541 5,468 4,620 4,965 5,103
Operating margin 3,310 3,124 3,682 3,322 2,457 2,681 2,943 2,816
Credit costs 601 694 915 1,200 1,351 2,190 1,155 1,074
Earnings $ 1,864 $ 1,628 $ 1,827 $ 1,400 $ 730 $ 325 $ 1,179 $ 1,150
Operating Performance:
Shareholder value added $ 514 $ 311 $ 536 $ 148 $ (551) $ (964) $ (57) $ (59)
Return on average common equity 17% 15% 17% 13% 7% 3% 11% 11%
Overhead ratio 61 62 61 63 69 63 63 64
Common dividend payout ratio 38 44 40 50 96 222 59 60
(a) Includes a $1.3 billion charge in connection with the settlement of the Enron-related surety litigation and the establishment of a reserve related to certain material litigations, proceedings and investigations.
(b) Includes Junior subordinated deferrable interest debentures held by trusts that issued guaranteed capital debt securities and Guaranteed preferred beneficial interests in capital debt securities issued
by consolidated trusts. Excludes $2.4 billion and $3.1 billion of FIN 46 long-term beneficial interests at December 31, 2003 and September 30, 2003, respectively, included in Beneficial interests issued by
consolidated variable interest entities on the Consolidated balance sheet.
(c) JPMorgan Chase’s common stock is listed and traded on the New York Stock Exchange, the London Stock Exchange Limited and the Tokyo Stock Exchange. The high, low and closing prices of JPMorgan
Chase’s common stock are from the New York Stock Exchange Composite Transaction Tape.
(d) Includes credit card receivables that had been securitized. Amounts shown in 2002 exclude merger and restructuring costs, and special items. For a description of special items, see Glossary of terms on
page 131 of this Annual Report.

Five-year summary of financial highlights
(unaudited)
(in millions, except per share and ratio data) 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999
REPORTED BASIS
Revenue $ 33,256 $ 29,614 $ 29,344 $ 33,186 $ 31,146
Noninterest expense
(excluding merger and restructuring costs) 21,688 21,554(a) 21,073 21,642 18,188
Merger and restructuring costs — 1,210 2,523 1,431 23
Provision for credit losses 1,540 4,331 3,182 1,380 1,446
Income tax expense 3,309 856 847 3,006 3,988
Income before effect of accounting change 6,719 1,663 1,719 5,727 7,501
Net effect of change in accounting principle — — (25) — —
Net income $ 6,719 $ 1,663 $ 1,694 $ 5,727 $ 7,501
Per Common Share:
Net income per share
Basic $ 3.32 $ 0.81 $ 0.83(e) $ 2.99 $ 3.87
Diluted 3.24 0.80 0.80(e) 2.86 3.69
Cash dividends declared 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.28 1.08
Book value at December 31 22.10 20.66 20.32 21.17 18.07
Performance Ratios:
Return on average assets 0.87% 0.23% 0.23% 0.85% 1.19%
Return on average common equity 16 4 4 16 22
Capital Ratios:
Tier 1 capital ratio 8.5% 8.2% 8.3% 8.5% 8.5%
Total capital ratio 11.8 12.0 11.9 12.0 12.3
Tier 1 leverage ratio 5.6 5.1 5.2 5.4 5.9
Selected Balance Sheet Items:
Net loans $ 214,995 $ 211,014 $ 212,920 $ 212,385 $ 199,270
Total assets 770,912 758,800 693,575 715,348 667,003
Deposits 326,492 304,753 293,650 279,365 287,064
Long-term debt(b) 54,782 45,190 43,622 47,238 45,540
Common stockholders’ equity 45,145 41,297 40,090 40,818 33,434
Total stockholders’ equity 46,154 42,306 41,099 42,338 35,056
Share price (c)

High $ 38.26 $ 39.68 $ 59.19 $ 67.17 $ 60.75
Low 20.13 15.26 29.04 32.38 43.88
Close 36.73 24.00 36.35 45.44 51.79
OPERATING BASIS(d)
Revenue $ 35,126 $ 31,053 $ 30,392 $ 33,045 $ 31,911
Expense 21,688 20,156 20,488 21,258 17,903
Operating margin 13,438 10,897 9,904 11,787 14,008
Credit costs 3,410 5,770 4,230 2,370 2,439
Earnings $ 6,719 $ 3,384 $ 3,802 $ 6,176 $ 7,554
Operating Performance:
Shareholder value added $ 1,509 $ (1,631) $ (1,247) $ 1,739 $ 3,496
Return on average common equity 16% 8% 9% 17% 23%
Overhead ratio 62 65 67 64 56
Common dividend payout ratio 43 83 73 39 28
(a) Includes a $1.3 billion charge in connection with the settlement of the Enron-related surety litigation and the establishment of a reserve related to certain material litigations, proceedings and investigations.
(b) Includes Junior subordinated deferrable interest debentures held by trusts that issued guaranteed capital debt securities and Guaranteed preferred beneficial interests in capital debt securities issued by
consolidated trusts. Excludes $2.4 billion of FIN 46 long-term beneficial interests at December 31, 2003 included in Beneficial interests issued by consolidated variable interest entities on the Consolidated
balance sheet.
(c) JPMorgan Chase’s common stock is listed and traded on the New York Stock Exchange, the London Stock Exchange Limited and the Tokyo Stock Exchange. The high, low and closing prices of JPMorgan Chase’s
common stock are from the New York Stock Exchange Composite Transaction Tape. Share-related data have been restated to reflect a three-for-two stock split effective as of the close of business on June 9, 2000.
(d) Includes credit card receivables that had been securitized. Amounts shown prior to 2003 exclude merger and restructuring costs, and special items. For a reconciliation from reported results to operating
basis, see page 28 of this Annual Report. For a description of special items, see Glossary of terms on page 131 of this Annual Report.
(e) Basic and diluted earnings per share have been reduced by $0.01 in 2001 because of the impact of the adoption of SFAS 133 relating to the accounting for derivative instruments and hedging activities.

Glossary of terms
AICPA: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. EITF Issue 02-3: “Issues Involved in Accounting for Derivative
Contracts Held for Trading Purposes and Contracts Involved in
APB: Accounting Principles Board Opinion.
Energy Trading and Risk Management Activities.”
APB 25: “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees.”
EITF Issue 03-1: “The Meaning of Other-Than-Temporary
Asset capital tax: Capital allocated to each business segment Impairment and Its Application to Certain Investments.”
based on its average asset level and certain off-balance sheet
FASB: Financial Accounting Standards Board.
credit-related exposures; reflects the need for the Firm to main-
tain minimum leverage ratios to meet bank regulatory defini- FIN 39: FASB Interpretation No. 39, “Offsetting of Amounts
tions of “well capitalized.” Related to Certain Contracts.”
Assets Under Management: Represent assets managed by FIN 41: FASB Interpretation No. 41, “Offsetting of Amounts Related
Investment Management & Private Banking on behalf of institu- to Certain Repurchase and Reverse Repurchase Agreements.”
tional, retail and private banking clients.
FIN 45: FASB Interpretation No. 45, “Guarantor’s Accounting
Assets Under Supervision: Represent assets under management and Disclosure Requirement for Guarantees, including Indirect
as well as custody, brokerage, administration and deposit accounts. Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others.”
Average Allocated Capital: Represents the portion of average FIN 46: FASB Interpretation No. 46, “Consolidation of Variable
common stockholders’ equity allocated to the business segments, Interest Entities, an interpretation of Accounting Research
based on their respective risks. The total average allocated capi- Bulletin No. 51.”
tal of all business segments equals the total average common
FSP SFAS 106-1: FASB Staff Position No. SFAS 106-1, “Accounting
stockholders’ equity of the Firm.
and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescrip-
Average Managed Assets: Includes credit card receivables that tion Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003.”
have been securitized. Foreign exchange contracts are contracts that provide for
the future receipt and delivery of foreign currency at previously
Basis point value (“BPV”): This measurement quantifies the
agreed-upon terms.
change in the market value of assets and liabilities (that are not
part of trading activities) that would result from a one-basis- Interest rate options, including caps and floors, are contracts
point change in interest rates or a one-basis-point widening of to modify interest rate risk in exchange for the payment of a pre-
interest rate spreads. BPV shows whether an increase of 1/100 mium when the contract is initiated. A writer of interest rate
of 1% (or one basis point) in a market rate will yield a profit or options receives a premium in exchange for bearing the risk of
loss, and of what magnitude. unfavorable changes in interest rates. Conversely, a purchaser of
an option pays a premium for the right, but not the obligation,
bp: Denotes basis points; 100 bp equals 1%.
to buy or sell a financial instrument or currency at predetermined
Credit derivatives are contractual agreements that provide terms in the future.
protection against a credit event of one or more referenced
Interest rate swaps are contracts in which a series of interest
credits. The nature of a credit event is established by the protec-
rate payments in a single currency are exchanged over a pre-
tion buyer and protection seller at the inception of a transac-
scribed period. An example of a situation in which an interest
tion, and such events include bankruptcy, insolvency and failure
rate swap would be used would be to convert fixed-rate debt to
to meet payment obligations when due. The buyer of the credit
a variable rate. By entering into the swap, the principal amount
derivative pays a periodic fee in return for a payment by the
of the debt would remain unchanged, but the interest streams
protection seller upon the occurrence, if any, of a credit event.
would change from fixed to variable.
Credit risk: Risk of loss from obligor or counterparty default.
Investment-grade: An indication of credit quality based on
Criticized: An indication of credit quality based on JPMorgan JPMorgan Chase’s internal risk assessment system. “Investment-
Chase’s internal risk assessment system. “Criticized” assets gen- grade” generally represents a risk profile similar to a rating of a
erally represent a risk profile similar to a rating of a CCC+/Caa1 BBB-/Baa3 or better, as defined by independent rating agencies.
or lower, as defined by the independent rating agencies.
Liquidity risk: The risk of being unable to fund a portfolio of
Cross-currency interest rate swaps are contracts that involve assets at appropriate maturities and rates, and the risk of being
the exchange of both interest and principal amounts in two dif- unable to liquidate a position in a timely manner at a reasonable
ferent currencies. Also see Interest rate swaps in this glossary. price.
EITF: Emerging Issues Task Force. Managed credit card receivables or managed basis: Refers
to credit card receivables on the Firm’s balance sheet plus credit
card receivables that have been securitized.

Mark-to-market exposure: Mark-to-market exposure is a SFAS 123: “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation.”
measure, at a point in time, of the value of a derivative or for-
SFAS 128: “Earnings per Share.”
eign exchange contract in the open market. When the mark-to-
market value is positive, it indicates the counterparty owes SFAS 133: “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging
JPMorgan Chase and, therefore, creates a repayment risk for the Activities.”
Firm. When the mark-to-market value is negative, JPMorgan SFAS 140: “Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial
Chase owes the counterparty. In this situation, the Firm does Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities – a replacement of
not have repayment risk. FASB Statement No. 125.”
Market risk: The potential loss in value of portfolios and finan- SFAS 141: “Business Combinations.”
cial instruments caused by movements in market variables, such
as interest and foreign exchange rates, credit spreads, and equity SFAS 142: “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets.”
and commodity prices. SFAS 144: “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-
Master netting agreement: An agreement between two Lived Assets.”
counterparties that have multiple derivative contracts with SFAS 146: “Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or
each other that provides for the net settlement of all contracts Disposal Activities.”
through a single payment, in a single currency, in the event of
SFAS 149: “Amendment of Statement No. 133 on Derivative
default on or termination of any one contract. See FIN 39.
Instruments and Hedging Activities.”
NA: Not applicable.
SFAS 150: “Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with
Net yield on interest-earning assets: The average rate for Characteristics of both Liabilities and Equity.”
interest-earning assets less the average rate paid for all sources
Shareholder value added (“SVA”): Represents operating earn-
of funds.
ings minus preferred dividends and an explicit charge for capital.
NM: Not meaningful.
Six Sigma: Represents a business management approach that
Operating basis or operating earnings: Reported results enables firms to improve the quality of products and services
excluding the impact of credit card securitizations and, prior to delivered to clients through understanding client priorities, and
2003, merger and restructuring costs and special items. then eliminating process defects and failures. “Sigmas” (or
Operational risk: The risk of loss resulting from inadequate or standard deviations) are statistical measures of the defects or
failed processes or systems, human factors or external events. failures generated by a business process.
Overhead ratio: Operating expense (excluding merger and Special items: All amounts are on a pre-tax basis unless other-
restructuring costs and special items) as a percentage of operat- wise noted. There were no special items in 2003. Special items
ing revenue. in 2002 included a $1.3 billion charge for the settlement of the
Enron surety litigation and the establishment of a litigation
Return on Tangible Allocated Capital: Operating earnings reserve, and a $98 million charge for excess real estate capacity
less preferred dividends as a percentage of average allocated related to facilities in the West Coast of the United States.
capital, excluding the impact of goodwill. Special items in 2001 included a $25 million loss (after-tax) from
SFAS: Statement of Financial Accounting Standards. the cumulative effect of a transition adjustment related to the
adoption of SFAS 133. Special items in 2000 included an $827
SFAS 87: “Employers’ Accounting for Pensions.” million gain on the sale of the Hong Kong retail banking busi-
SFAS 88: “Employers’ Accounting for Settlements and ness, a $399 million gain from the transfer of Euroclear-related
Curtailments of Defined Benefit Pension Plans and for business, an $81 million gain from the sale of the Panama oper-
Termination Benefits.” ations and a $176 million loss resulting from the economic
hedge of the purchase price of Flemings prior to its acquisition.
SFAS 106: “Employers’ Accounting for Postretirement Benefits
Special items in 1999 were interest income of $62 million from
Other Than Pensions.”
prior years’ tax refunds, gains of $166 million from sales of non-
SFAS 107: “Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial strategic assets and a $100 million special contribution to The
Instruments.” Chase Manhattan Foundation.
SFAS 109: “Accounting for Income Taxes.” Stress testing: A scenario that measures market risk under
unlikely but plausible events in abnormal markets.
SFAS 114: “Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan.”
Tangible shareholder value added: SVA less the impact of
SFAS 115: “Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and
goodwill on operating earnings and capital charges.
Equity Securities.”
Value-at-Risk (“VAR”): A measure of the dollar amount of
SFAS 121: “Accounting for the Impairment of Long-Lived
potential loss from adverse market moves in an ordinary market
Assets and for Long-Lived Assets to be Disposed Of.”
environment.

Community Advisory Board
Janie Barrera David Gallagher Fred Lucas Clifford Rosenthal

President & CEO Executive Director President & CEO Executive Director
ACCION Texas Center for Neighborhood Faith Center for Community National Federation of
San Antonio, TX Economic Development Development, Inc. Community Development
Long Island City, NY New York, NY Credit Unions
Florence E. Baugh New York, NY
Director Christopher Garlin John Madeo
Neighborhood Services Executive Director President Winston A. Ross
Community Action Domus Corporation Fairfield 2000 Homes Executive Director
Organization of Erie County Newark, NJ Corporation Westchester Community
Buffalo, NY Southport, CT Opportunity Program
Luther Gatling Elmsford, NY
Shaun M. Belle President Richard Manson
President & CEO Budget & Credit Counseling Program Vice President N.E. David Scheck
The Mount Hope Services LISC Executive Director
Housing Company New York, NY New York, NY New Jersey Community
Bronx, NY Loan Fund
Caroline Glackin Maria Matos Trenton, NJ
Pascual Blanco Director Executive Director
Executive Director Entrepreneurship Center Latin American Doris Schnider
La Fuerza Unida de Glen Cove Delaware St. University Community Center President
Glen Cove, NY Dover, DE Wilmington, DE Delaware Community
Investment Corporation
Sylvia K. Brooks Ernest Gonzalez Ghebre Selassie Mehreteab Wilmington, DE
President & CEO Corporate Chair President & CEO
Houston Area Urban League LI Hispanic Chamber The NHP Foundation Roberta Schofield
Houston, TX of Commerce Washington, DC Consultant
West Islip, NY Salvation Army
James Buckley Luis Miranda Ponte Vedra Beach, FL
Executive Director Colvin Grannum Chairman
University Neighborhood President Audubon Partnership for Carlisle Towery
Housing Program Bedford Stuyvesant Economic Development President
Bronx, NY Restoration Corporation New York, NY Greater Jamaica Development
Brooklyn, NY Corporation
Joseph M. Carbone James Morgo Jamaica, NY
President & COO Roy Hastick President
The Workplace, Inc. President & CEO Long Island Terry Troia
Bridgeport, CT Caribbean American Chamber Housing Partnership Executive Director
of Commerce & Industry Hauppauge, NY Project Hospitality
David Chen Brooklyn, NY Staten Island, NY
Executive Director Jeremy Nowak
Chinese American Planning Lynda Ireland President & CEO Reginald Tuggle
Council Executive Director The Reinvestment Fund Pastor
New York, NY NY/NJ Minority Philadelphia, PA Memorial Presbyterian Church
Purchasing Council Roosevelt, NY
William Clark New York, NY David Pagan
President & CEO Executive Director Donna Wertenbach
Urban League of Rochester Kim Jacobs Southside United Housing President & CEO
Rochester, NY Executive Director Development Fund Community Economic
Hudson Valley Affordable Corporation Development Fund
Frederick A. Davie, Jr. Housing Finance Corp. Brooklyn, NY West Hartford, CT
Vice President Hawthorne, NY
Faith-Based Programs James Paley Lloyd Williams
Public/Private Ventures Erma C. Johnson-Hadley Executive Director President & CEO
Philadelphia, PA Vice Chancellor Neighborhood Housing Greater Harlem Chamber
Tarrant County College Services of New Haven of Commerce
Harold DiRienzo Fort Worth, TX New Haven, CT New York, NY
President & CEO
Parodneck Foundation Francine Justa Edwin Reed Johnny Ray Youngblood
New York, NY Executive Director Chief Financial Officer Pastor
Neighborhood Housing Allen AME Church St. Paul Community
William Frey Services of NYC Jamaica, NY Baptist Church
Vice President & Director New York, NY Brooklyn, NY
Enterprise Foundation Marcos Ronquillo
New York City Office Christopher Kui General Partner
New York, NY Executive Director The Ronquillo Law Firm, P.C.
Asian Americans for Equality Dallas, TX
New York, NY
William Linder
Chief Executive Officer
New Community Corporation
Newark, NJ

Regional Advisory Board
Philip C. Ackerman Arnold B. Glimcher Richard S. LeFrak Samuel I. Newhouse, III

Chairman, President Chairman President Advance Publications
and Chief Executive Officer PaceWildenstein Lefrak Organization, Inc.
National Fuel Gas Company William C. Rudin
Lewis Golub Leo Liebowitz President
Richard A. Bernstein Chairman of the Board President and Rudin Management
Chairman and The Golub Corporation Chief Executive Officer Company, Inc.
Chief Executive Officer Getty Realty Corp.
R.A.B. Holdings, Inc. Wallace A. Graham John Shalam
Chairman of the Board and William L. Mack Chairman and
Robert B. Catell Chief Executive Officer Founder and Managing Partner Chief Executive Officer
Chairman and Schenectady International, Inc. Apollo Real Estate Advisors, L.P. Audiovox Corporation
Chief Executive Officer
KeySpan Corporation Joel J. Horowitz Theodore Markson Arthur T. Shorin
Chairman of the Board Chairman Chairman and
Eugene R. Corasanti Tommy Hilfiger Corporation Paris Accessories, Inc. Chief Executive Officer
Chairman and The Topps Company, Inc.
Chief Executive Officer Thomas H. Jackson Herman I. Merinoff
CONMED Corporation President Chairman of the Board Kenneth L. Wallach
University of Rochester The Charmer Sunbelt Group Chairman, President
Emil Duda and Chief Executive Officer
Senior Executive Vice President Peter J. Kallet John Morphy Central National-Gottesman Inc.
and Chief Financial Officer Chairman, President Senior Vice President
The Lifetime Healthcare and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Fred Wilpon
Companies Oneida Ltd. Paychex, Inc. Chairman
Sterling Equities, Inc.
Charles F. Fortgang Dr. Shirley Strum Kenny Dennis M. Mullen
Chairman President Chairman, President Judith D. Zuk
M. Fabrikant & Sons, Inc. Stony Brook University and Chief Executive Officer President and
Bird’s Eye Foods Chief Executive Officer
Gladys George Charles A. Krasne Brooklyn Botanic Garden
President President and Michael C. Nahl
Lenox Hill Hospital Chief Executive Officer Senior Vice President
Krasdale Foods, Inc. and Chief Financial Officer
Albany International Corp.

National Advisory Board
J.T. Battenberg III David F. DeVoe Thomas H. Lee David L. Shedlarz

Chairman of the Board, Chief Financial Officer Chairman and Executive Vice President
Chief Executive Officer News Corporation Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
and President The Thomas H. Lee Partners, LP Pfizer Inc.
Delphi Corporation William T. Dillard II
Chairman and David C. McCourt Henry R. Silverman
Richard I. Beattie Esq. Chief Executive Officer Chairman and Chairman, President
Chairman, Dillard Department Stores, Inc. Chief Executive Officer and Chief Executive Officer
Executive Committee RCN Corporation Cendant Corporation
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Archie W. Dunham
Chairman Darla D. Moore Barry S. Sternlicht
Leon D. Black ConocoPhillips Executive Vice President Chairman and
Founding Partner Rainwater, Inc. Chief Executive Officer
Apollo Management, L.P. Paul J. Fribourg Starwood Hotels & Resorts
Chairman and Patrick J. Moore Worldwide
John B. Blystone Chief Executive Officer Chairman, President
Chairman, President ContiGroup Companies, Inc. and Chief Executive Officer Doreen A. Toben
and Chief Executive Officer Smurfit-Stone Container Executive Vice President
SPX Corporation Charles E. Golden Corporation and Chief Financial Officer
Executive Vice President Verizon Communications Inc.
David Bonderman and Chief Financial Officer Joseph L. Rice III
Founding Partner Eli Lilly and Company Chairman Thomas Usher
Texas Pacific Group Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, Inc. Chairman and
John B. Hess Chief Executive Officer
Richard J. Bressler Chairman of the Board David M. Rubenstein United States Steel Corp
Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer Founding Partner
and Chief Financial Officer Amerada Hess Corporation The Carlyle Group Mortimer B. Zuckerman
Viacom Inc. Chairman
Thomas O. Hicks Stephen A. Schwarzman Boston Properties, Inc.
Frank A. D’Amelio Chairman of the Board President and
Executive Vice President Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer Incorporated The Blackstone Group
Lucent Technologies
John W. Kluge Richard Scott
Nancy J. De Lisi Chairman and President Senior Managing Director,
Senior Vice President Metromedia Company Head of Global Fixed Income
of Mergers & Acquisitions AIG Global Investment
Altria Group, Inc. Group, Inc.

JPMorgan International Council
Hon. George P. Shultz Fritz Gerber The Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney Marco Tronchetti Provera
Chairman of the Council Honorary Chairman Senior Partner Chairman and
Distinguished Fellow Roche Holding Ltd. Ogilvy Renault Chief Executive Officer
Hoover Institution, Basel, Switzerland Montreal, Canada Pirelli & C. SpA
Stanford University Milan, Italy
Stanford, California Claudio X. González David J. O’Reilly
Chairman of the Board Chairman and Cees J.A. van Lede
and Chief Executive Officer Chief Executive Officer Former Chairman,
Mohammed Ali Abalkhail Kimberly-Clark de México, ChevronTexaco Corporation Board of Management
Former Minister of S.A. de C.V. San Ramon, California Akzo Nobel
Finance & Economy Mexico City, Mexico Arnhem, The Netherlands
David Rockefeller
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Karen Katen Former Chairman Douglas A. Warner III
Jean-Louis Beffa President The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. Former Chairman of the Board
Chairman and Pfizer Global Pharmaceuticals New York, New York J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Chief Executive Officer Pfizer Inc. New York, New York
New York, New York Sir John Rose
Compagnie de Saint-Gobain Chief Executive Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala
Paris, France Hon. Henry A. Kissinger Rolls-Royce plc President
Hon. Bill Bradley Chairman London, United Kingdom Ayala Corporation
Allen & Company Kissinger Associates, Inc. Makati City, Philippines
New York, New York Jürgen E. Schrempp
New York, New York Chairman of the Board
Michael A. Chaney Yotaro Kobayashi of Management
Managing Director Chairman of the Board DaimlerChrysler A.G. Ex-Officio Member
Wesfarmers Limited Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd. Stuttgart, Germany
Perth, Australia Tokyo, Japan
Walter V. Shipley William B. Harrison, Jr.
André Desmarais Rahmi M. Koç Former Chairman of the Board Chairman and
President and Honorary Chairman The Chase Manhattan Chief Executive Officer
Co-Chief Executive Officer Ç
Koç Holding A.S. Corporation J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Power Corporation of Canada Istanbul, Turkey New York, New York New York, New York
Montreal, Canada Hon. Lee Kuan Yew Jess Søderberg
Martin Feldstein Senior Minister Partner and
President and Republic of Singapore Chief Executive Officer
Chief Executive Officer Singapore A.P. Møller-Maersk Group
National Bureau of Copenhagen, Denmark
Antonio Madero
Economic Research, Inc. Chairman of the Board William S. Stavropoulos
Cambridge, Massachusetts and Chief Executive Officer Chairman of the Board
Arminio Fraga Neto SANLUIS Corporación, S.A. de C.V. The Dow Chemical Company
Founding Partner Mexico City, Mexico Midland, Michigan
Gavea Investimentos Ratan Naval Tata
Rio de Janiero, Brazil Chairman
Tata Sons Limited
Mumbai, India

Board of Directors
Hans W. Becherer John H. Biggs Ellen V. Futter Helene L. Kaplan

Retired Chairman and Former Chairman and President and Trustee Of Counsel
Chief Executive Officer Chief Executive Officer American Museum of Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Deere & Company Teachers Insurance Natural History Meagher & Flom LLP
and Annuity Association-
Riley P. Bechtel College Retirement William H. Gray, III Lee R. Raymond
Chairman and Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF) President and Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer Chief Executive Officer Chief Executive Officer
Bechtel Group, Inc. Lawrence A. Bossidy The College Fund/UNCF Exxon Mobil Corporation
Retired Chairman
Frank A. Bennack, Jr. Honeywell International Inc. William B. Harrison, Jr. John R. Stafford
Chairman of the Chairman and Retired Chairman of the Board
Executive Committee and M. Anthony Burns Chief Executive Officer Wyeth
Vice Chairman of the Board Chairman Emeritus
The Hearst Corporation Ryder System, Inc.
Office of the Chairman
William B. Harrison, Jr. David A. Coulter Donald H. Layton

Chairman and Chief Executive Investment Bank Chase Financial Services,
Officer, Chairman of the Investment Management Treasury & Securities Services,
Executive Committee & Private Banking Technology
Executive Committee
William B. Harrison, Jr. Steven D. Black James B. Lee, Jr. Richard J. Srednicki
Chairman and Chief Executive Investment Bank Investment Bank Chase Financial Services
Officer, Chairman of the
Executive Committee Ina R. Drew William H. McDavid James E. Staley
Investment Bank Legal Investment Management
David A. Coulter & Private Banking
Investment Bank Dina Dublon Harold W. Pote
Investment Management Finance Chase Financial Services Jeffrey C. Walker
& Private Banking JPMorgan Partners
John J. Farrell Stephen J. Rotella
Donald H. Layton Human Resources, Chase Financial Services Don M. Wilson III
Chase Financial Services, Real Estate/Facilities, Risk Management
General Services, Security John W. Schmidlin
Treasury & Securities Services, Technology William T. Winters
Technology Walter A. Gubert Investment Bank
Investment Bank
Other corporate officers
David B. Edelson Anthony J. Horan William J. Moran Lesley Daniels Webster

Treasury Secretary Audit Market Risk Management
Frederick W. Hill Donald H. McCree, III Joseph L. Sclafani
Marketing & Communications Credit Risk Management Controller

Corporate headquarters Directors Stockholder inquiries

270 Park Avenue To contact any of the Board members Contact Mellon Investor Services LLC:
New York, New York 10017-2070 please mail correspondence to:
Telephone: 212-270-6000 By telephone:
http://www.jpmorganchase.com Attention (Board member) Within the United States, Canada and
Office of the Secretary Puerto Rico: 1-800-758-4651
Principal subsidiaries (toll free)
270 Park Avenue
JPMorgan Chase Bank New York, New York 10017-2070 From all other locations:
Chase Manhattan Bank USA, 1-201-329-8660 (collect)
The corporate governance practices of the
National Association
board, the charters of the principal board TDD service for the hearing impaired
J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.
committees and other governance infor- within the United States, Canada and
Annual report on Form 10-K mation can be accessed by visiting Puerto Rico: 1-800-231-5469 (toll free)
The Annual Report on Form 10-K of www.jpmorganchase.com and clicking on
All other locations:
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. as filed with the “Governance.” Stockholders may request
1-201-329-8354 (collect)
Securities and Exchange Commission will a copy of such materials by writing to the
be made available upon request to: Office of the Secretary at the above address. By mail:
Office of the Secretary Mellon Investor Services LLC
Transfer agent and registrar
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Overpeck Center
Mellon Investor Services LLC
270 Park Avenue 85 Challenger Road
Overpeck Center
New York, New York 10017-2070 Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660-2108
85 Challenger Road
Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660-2108 Duplicate mailings
Stock listing
Telephone: 1-800-758-4651 If you receive duplicate mailings because
New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
https://vault.melloninvestor.com/isd you have more than one account listing,
London Stock Exchange Limited
Tokyo Stock Exchange you may wish to save J.P. Morgan Chase
Dividend reinvestment plan
& Co. money by consolidating your
The New York Stock Exchange ticker sym- Stockholders of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
accounts. Please write to the agent at the
bols for stock of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. may use their dividends to purchase shares
address above.
are as follows: of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
JPM (Common Stock) common stock through the Dividend Independent accountants
JPMPRA (Adjustable Rate Cumulative Reinvestment Plan. A prospectus PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Preferred Stock, Series A) and enrollment card may be obtained by 1177 Avenue of the Americas
JPMPRH (Depositary Shares Each calling 1-800-758-4651 or by writing to New York, New York 10036
Representing a One-Tenth Interest in Mellon Investor Services LLC, the
6 5/8% Cumulative Preferred Stock) reinvestment agent for the plan, at the
JPMPRL (Adjustable Rate Cumulative address indicated above.
Preferred Stock, Series L)
Direct deposit of dividends
JPMPRN (Adjustable Rate Cumulative
Preferred Stock, Series N) For information about direct deposit of
dividends, please contact Mellon Investor
Financial information about J.P. Morgan Services LLC.
Chase & Co. can be accessed by
visiting the Investor Relations site of
www.jpmorganchase.com. Additional
questions should be addressed to: Disclaimer
Investor Relations JPMorgan Chase has filed a Registration Statement on Form S-4 with the Securities and Exchange Commission
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. containing a preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus regarding the proposed merger. Stockholders are
270 Park Avenue urged to read the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus when it becomes available, because it will contain
New York, New York 10017-2070 important information. Stockholders will be able to obtain a free copy of the definitive joint proxy
Telephone: 212-270-6000 statement/prospectus, as well as other filings containing information about JPMorgan Chase and Bank One,
without charge, at the SEC’s Internet site (http://www.sec.gov). Copies of the definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus and the filings with the SEC that will be incorporated by reference in the definitive joint
proxy statement/prospectus can also be obtained, without charge, by directing a request to J.P. Morgan Chase &
Co., 270 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017, Attention: Office of the Secretary (212-270-4040), or to
Bank One Corporation, 1 Bank One Plaza, Suite 0738, Chicago, Illinois 60670, Attention: Investor Relations
(312-336-3013).
The respective directors and executive officers of JPMorgan Chase and Bank One and other persons may be
© 2004 deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies in respect of the proposed merger. Information regarding
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. JPMorgan Chase’s and Bank One's directors and executive officers and a description of their direct and indirect
All rights reserved.
interests, by security holdings or otherwise, is available in the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus con-
Printed in U.S.A. tained in the above-referenced Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on February 20, 2004.
www.jpmorganchase.com

Annual Report 2003 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annual Report 2003 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annual Report 2003 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANNUAL REPORT 2003

As of or for the year ended December 31,

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

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report 3

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

In wholesale banking, our capabilities reach across all important product

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report 5

Hans W. Becherer John H. Biggs Ellen V. Futter Helene L. Kaplan

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

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report 7

Capitalizing on expanding markets: Ripplewood Holdings

Supporting client goals: Panamerican Beverages, Inc.

Meeting unparalleled demand: Chase Home Finance

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

Creating innovative solutions: Microsoft

Setting a global benchmark: KfW

Mobilizing wide-ranging expertise: acquisition of ProSiebenSat.1

Building unique service combinations: Asia Pacific financial institution

Providing multi-business solutions: Dell Inc.

Harnessing financing know-how: the clients of Chase Auto Finance

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report 13

Acquiring complementary businesses: Treasury & Securities Services

Creating a unique offering: Personal Financial Services

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

Developing a leadership position in a growing market:

Enabling client transformation: Amersham PLC

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report 15

JPMorgan Chase Poll

Realizing dreams: minority homeownership

Fostering a rebirth: South Africa initiatives

Establishing leadership: corporate philanthropy

Treasury & Securities Services

• #1 in Automated Clearing House originations, CHIPS and Fedwire

Investment Management & Private Banking

• Global Fund ($6.5 billion) among largest funds in the market

Chase Financial Services

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

Financial: This section of the Annual Report provides

45 Risk and Capital management Certain forward-looking

Audited financial statements:

81 Management’s report on responsibility for

135 JPMorgan International Council

137 Corporate data and shareholder

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report 21

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

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

Mortgage fees and related income

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report 25

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

In addition to analyzing the Firm’s results on a reported basis, Capital allocation

■ JPMorgan is the brand name.

Investment Treasury & Investment JPMorgan Chase Financial

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. / 2003 Annual Report 27

Consolidated income statement

Total revenue $ 33,256 $ 1,870 $ 35,126 $ 29,614 $ 1,439 $ — $ 31,053

Contribution of businesses in 2003

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

JPMorgan Chase is one of the world’s leading $15,000

investment banks, as evidenced by the breadth