Off–balance sheet lending-related financial instruments, guarantees, and other commitments

JPMorgan Chase provides lending-related financial instruments (e.g., commitments and guarantees) to meet the financing needs of its customers. The contractual amount of these financial instruments represents the maximum possible credit risk to the Firm should the counterparty draw upon the commitment or the Firm be required to fulfill its obligation under the guarantee, and should the counterparty subsequently fail to perform according to the terms of the contract. Most of these commitments and guarantees expire without being drawn or a default occurring. As a result, the total contractual amount of these instruments is not, in the Firm’s view, representative of its actual future credit exposure or funding requirements.

To provide for probable credit losses inherent in wholesale and certain consumer lending-commitments, an allowance for credit losses on lending-related commitments is maintained. See Note 15 for further information regarding the allowance for credit losses on lending-related commitments. The following table summarizes the contractual amounts and carrying values of off-balance sheet lending-related financial instruments, guarantees and other commitments at December 31, 2015 and 2014. The amounts in the table below for credit card and home equity lending-related commitments represent the total available credit for these products. The Firm has not experienced, and does not anticipate, that all available lines of credit for these products will be utilized at the same time. The Firm can reduce or cancel credit card lines of credit by providing the borrower notice or, in some cases as permitted by law, without notice. In addition, the Firm typically closes credit card lines when the borrower is 60 days or more past due. The Firm may reduce or close home equity lines of credit when there are significant decreases in the value of the underlying property, or when there has been a demonstrable decline in the creditworthiness of the borrower.



Off–balance sheet lending-related financial instruments, guarantees and other commitments
	Contractual amount												Carrying value^(j)
	2015										2014		2015			2014
By remaining maturity at December 31, (in millions)	Expires in 1 year or less		Expires after 1 year through 3 years		Expires after 3 years through 5 years		Expires after 5 years		Total		Total
Lending-related
Consumer, excluding credit card:
Home equity – senior lien	$	1,546	$	3,817	$	726	$	4,743	$	10,832	$	11,807	$	—		$	—
Home equity – junior lien	2,375		4,354		657		4,538		11,924		14,859		—			—
Prime mortgage^(a)	12,992		—		—		—		12,992		8,579		—			—
Subprime mortgage	—		—		—		—		—		—		—			—
Auto	8,907		1,160		80		90		10,237		10,462		2			2
Business banking	11,085		699		92		475		12,351		11,894		12			11
Student and other	4		3		—		135		142		552		—			—
Total consumer, excluding credit card	36,909		10,033		1,555		9,981		58,478		58,153		14			13
Credit card	515,518		—		—		—		515,518		525,963		—			—
Total consumer^(b)	552,427		10,033		1,555		9,981		573,996		584,116		14			13
Wholesale:
Other unfunded commitments to extend credit^(c)(d)(e)	85,861		89,925		140,640		6,899		323,325		318,278		649			491
Standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees^(c)(d)(e)	16,083		14,287		5,819		2,944		39,133		44,272		548			671
Other letters of credit^(c)	3,570		304		67		—		3,941		4,331		2			1
Total wholesale^(f)(g)	105,514		104,516		146,526		9,843		366,399		366,881		1,199			1,163
Total lending-related	$	657,941	$	114,549	$	148,081	$	19,824	$	940,395	$	950,997	$	1,213		$	1,176
Other guarantees and commitments
Securities lending indemnification agreements and guarantees^(h)	$	183,329	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	183,329	$	171,059	$	—		$	—
Derivatives qualifying as guarantees	3,194		285		11,160		39,145		53,784		53,589		222			80
Unsettled reverse repurchase and securities borrowing agreements	42,482		—		—		—		42,482		40,993		—			—
Unsettled repurchase and securities lending agreements	21,798		—		—		—		21,798		42,578		—			—
Loan sale and securitization-related indemnifications:
Mortgage repurchase liability	NA		NA		NA		NA		NA		NA		148			275
Loans sold with recourse	NA		NA		NA		NA		4,274		6,063		82			102
Other guarantees and commitments⁽ⁱ⁾	369		2,603		1,075		1,533		5,580		5,720		(94		)	(121		)


(a)	Includes certain commitments to purchase loans from correspondents.


(b)	Predominantly all consumer lending-related commitments are in the U.S.

(c)

At December 31, 2015 and 2014, reflects the contractual amount net of risk participations totaling $385 million and $243 million, respectively, for other unfunded commitments to extend credit; $11.2 billion and $13.0 billion, respectively, for standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees; and $341 million and $469 million, respectively, for other letters of credit. In regulatory filings with the Federal Reserve these commitments are shown gross of risk participations.

(d)

At December 31, 2015 and 2014, included credit enhancements and bond and commercial paper liquidity commitments to U.S. states and municipalities, hospitals and other nonprofit entities of $12.3 billion and $14.8 billion, respectively, within other unfunded commitments to extend credit; and $9.6 billion and $13.3 billion, respectively, within standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees. Other unfunded commitments to extend credit also include liquidity facilities to nonconsolidated municipal bond VIEs; see Note 16.

(e)

Effective in 2015, commitments to issue standby letters of credit, including those that could be issued under multipurpose facilities, are presented as other unfunded commitments to extend credit. Previously, such commitments were presented as standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees. At December 31, 2014, these commitments were $45.6 billion. Prior period amounts have been revised to conform with current period presentation.


(f)	At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the U.S. portion of the contractual amount of total wholesale lending-related commitments was 77% and 73%, respectively.

(g)

Effective January 1, 2015, the Firm no longer includes within its disclosure of wholesale lending-related commitments the unused amount of advised uncommitted lines of credit as it is within the Firm’s discretion whether or not to make a loan under these lines, and the Firm’s approval is generally required prior to funding. Prior period amounts have been revised to conform with the current period presentation.


(h)	At December 31, 2015 and 2014, collateral held by the Firm in support of securities lending indemnification agreements was $190.6 billion and $177.1 billion, respectively. Securities lending collateral consist of primarily cash and securities issued by governments that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) and U.S. government agencies.

(i)

At December 31, 2015 and 2014, included unfunded commitments of $50 million and $147 million, respectively, to third-party private equity funds; and $871 million and $961 million, respectively, to other equity investments. These commitments included $73 million and $150 million, respectively, related to investments that are generally fair valued at net asset value as discussed in Note 3. In addition, at December 31, 2015 and 2014, included letters of credit hedged by derivative transactions and managed on a market risk basis of $4.6 billion and $4.5 billion, respectively.


(j)	For lending-related products, the carrying value represents the allowance for lending-related commitments and the guarantee liability; for derivative-related products, the carrying value represents the fair value.

Other unfunded commitments to extend credit

Other unfunded commitments to extend credit generally consist of commitments for working capital and general corporate purposes, extensions of credit to support commercial paper facilities and bond financings in the event that those obligations cannot be remarketed to new investors, as well as committed liquidity facilities to clearing organizations. The Firm also issues commitments under multipurpose facilities which could be drawn upon in several forms, including the issuance of a standby letter of credit.

Also included in other unfunded commitments to extend credit are commitments to noninvestment-grade counterparties in connection with leveraged finance activities, which were $32.1 billion and $23.4 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. For further information, see Note 3 and Note 4.

The Firm acts as a settlement and custody bank in the U.S. tri-party repurchase transaction market. In its role as settlement and custody bank, the Firm is exposed to the intra-day credit risk of its cash borrower clients, usually broker-dealers. This exposure arises under secured clearance advance facilities that the Firm extends to its clients (i.e. cash borrowers); these facilities contractually limit the Firm’s intra-day credit risk to the facility amount

and must be repaid by the end of the day. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, the secured clearance advance facility maximum outstanding commitment amount was $2.9 billion and $12.6 billion, respectively.

Guarantees

U.S. GAAP requires 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. U.S. GAAP defines a guarantee as a contract that contingently requires the guarantor to pay a guaranteed party based upon: (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-related arrangements to be guarantees under U.S. GAAP: standby letters of credit and financial guarantees, securities lending indemnifications, certain indemnification agreements included within third-party contractual arrangements and certain derivative contracts.

As required by U.S. GAAP, the Firm initially records guarantees at the inception date fair value of the obligation assumed (e.g., the amount of consideration received or the net present value of the premium receivable). For certain types of guarantees, the Firm records this fair value amount in other liabilities with an offsetting entry recorded in cash (for premiums received), or other assets (for premiums receivable). Any premium receivable recorded in other assets is reduced as cash is received under the contract, and the fair value of the liability recorded at inception is amortized into income as lending and deposit-related fees over the life of the guarantee contract. For indemnifications provided in sales agreements, a portion of the sale proceeds is allocated to the guarantee, which adjusts the gain or loss that would otherwise result from the transaction. For these indemnifications, the initial liability is amortized to income as the Firm’s risk is reduced (i.e., over time or when the indemnification expires). Any contingent liability that exists as a result of issuing the guarantee or indemnification is recognized when it becomes probable and reasonably estimable. The contingent portion of the liability is not recognized if the estimated amount is less than the carrying amount of the liability recognized at inception (adjusted for any amortization). The recorded amounts of the liabilities related to guarantees and indemnifications at December 31, 2015 and 2014, excluding the allowance for credit losses on lending-related commitments, are discussed below.

Standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees

Standby letters of credit (“SBLC”) and other financial guarantees are conditional lending commitments issued by the Firm to guarantee the performance of a customer to a third party under certain arrangements, such as commercial paper facilities, bond financings, acquisition financings, trade and similar transactions. The carrying values of standby and other letters of credit were $550 million and $672 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, which were classified in accounts payable and other liabilities on the Consolidated balance sheets; these carrying values included $123 million and $118 million, respectively, for the allowance for lending-related commitments, and $427 million and $554 million, respectively, for the guarantee liability and corresponding asset.

The following table summarizes the types of facilities under which standby letters of credit and other letters of credit arrangements are outstanding by the ratings profiles of the Firm’s customers, as of December 31, 2015 and 2014.

Standby letters of credit, other financial guarantees and other letters of credit



	2015				2014
December 31, (in millions)	Standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees^(b)		Other letters of credit		Standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees^(b)		Other letters of credit
Investment-grade^(a)	$	31,751	$	3,290	$	37,709	$	3,476
Noninvestment-grade^(a)	7,382		651		6,563		855
Total contractual amount	$	39,133	$	3,941	$	44,272	$	4,331
Allowance for lending-related commitments	$	121	$	2	$	117	$	1
Commitments with collateral	18,825		996		20,750		1,509


(a)	The ratings scale is based on the Firm’s internal ratings, which generally correspond to ratings as defined by S&P and Moody’s.

(b)

Securities lending indemnifications

Through the Firm’s securities lending program, customers’ securities, via custodial and non-custodial arrangements, may be lent to third parties. As part of this program, the Firm provides an indemnification in the lending agreements which protects the lender against the failure of the borrower to return the lent securities. To minimize its liability under these indemnification agreements, the Firm obtains cash or other highly liquid collateral with a market value exceeding 100% of the value of the securities on loan from the borrower. Collateral is marked to market daily to help assure that collateralization is adequate. Additional collateral is called from the borrower if a shortfall exists, or collateral may be released to the borrower in the event of overcollateralization. If a borrower defaults, the Firm would use the collateral held to purchase replacement securities in the market or to credit the lending customer with the cash equivalent thereof.

Derivatives qualifying as guarantees

In addition to the contracts described above, the Firm transacts certain derivative contracts that have the characteristics of a guarantee under U.S. GAAP. These contracts include written put options that require the Firm to purchase assets upon exercise by the option holder at a specified price by a specified date in the future. The Firm may enter into written put option contracts in order to meet client needs, or for other trading purposes. The terms of written put options are typically five years or less. Derivatives deemed to be guarantees also include contracts such as stable value derivatives that require the Firm to make a payment of the difference between the market value and the book value of a counterparty’s reference portfolio of assets in the event that market value is less than book value and certain other conditions have been met. Stable value derivatives, commonly referred to as “stable value wraps”, are transacted in order to allow investors to realize investment returns with less volatility than an unprotected portfolio and are typically longer-term or may have no stated maturity, but allow the Firm to terminate the contract under certain conditions.

Derivatives deemed to be guarantees are recorded on the Consolidated balance sheets at fair value in trading assets and trading liabilities. The total notional value of the derivatives that the Firm deems to be guarantees was $53.8 billion and $53.6 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The notional amount generally represents the Firm’s maximum exposure to derivatives qualifying as guarantees. However, exposure to certain stable value contracts is contractually limited to a substantially lower percentage of the notional amount; the notional amount on these stable value contracts was $28.4 billion and $27.5 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, and the maximum exposure to loss was $3.0 billion and $2.9 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The fair values of the contracts reflect the probability of whether the Firm will be required to perform under the contract. The fair value of derivatives that the Firm deems to be guarantees were derivative payables of $236 million and $102 million and derivative receivables of $14 million and $22 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The Firm reduces exposures to these contracts by entering into offsetting transactions, or by entering into contracts that hedge the market risk related to the derivative guarantees.

In addition to derivative contracts that meet the characteristics of a guarantee, the Firm is both a purchaser and seller of credit protection in the credit derivatives market. For a further discussion of credit derivatives, see Note 6.

Unsettled reverse repurchase and securities borrowing agreements, and unsettled repurchase and securities lending agreements

In the normal course of business, the Firm enters into reverse repurchase agreements and securities borrowing agreements, which are secured financing agreements. Such agreements settle at a future date. At settlement, these commitments result in the Firm advancing cash to and receiving securities collateral from the counterparty. The Firm also enters into repurchase agreements and securities lending agreements. At settlement, these commitments result in the Firm receiving cash from and providing securities collateral to the counterparty. These agreements generally do not meet the definition of a derivative, and therefore, are not recorded on the Consolidated balance sheets until settlement date. These agreements predominantly consist of agreements with regular-way settlement periods. For a further discussion of securities purchased under resale agreements and securities borrowed, and securities sold under repurchase agreements and securities loaned, see Note 13.

Loan sales- and securitization-related indemnifications

Mortgage repurchase liability

In connection with the Firm’s mortgage loan sale and securitization activities with U.S. GSEs, as described in Note 16, the Firm has made representations and warranties that the loans sold meet certain requirements. The Firm has been, and may be, required to repurchase loans and/or indemnify U.S. GSEs (e.g., with “make-whole” payments to reimburse U.S. GSEs for their realized losses on liquidated loans). To the extent that repurchase demands that are received relate to loans that the Firm purchased from third parties that remain viable, the Firm typically will have the right to seek a recovery of related repurchase losses from the third party. Generally, the maximum amount of future payments the Firm would be required to make for breaches of these representations and warranties would be equal to the unpaid principal balance of such loans that are deemed to have defects that were sold to purchasers (including securitization-related SPEs) plus, in certain circumstances, accrued interest on such loans and certain expense. The carrying values of the repurchase liabilities were $148 million and $275 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Private label securitizations

The liability related to repurchase demands associated with private label securitizations is separately evaluated by the Firm in establishing its litigation reserves.

On November 15, 2013, the Firm announced that it had reached a $4.5 billion agreement with 21 major institutional investors to make a binding offer to the trustees of 330 residential mortgage-backed securities trusts issued by J.P.Morgan, Chase, and Bear Stearns (“RMBS Trust Settlement”) to resolve all representation and warranty claims, as well as all servicing claims, on all trusts issued by J.P. Morgan, Chase, and Bear Stearns between 2005 and 2008. For further information see Note 31.

In addition, from 2005 to 2008, Washington Mutual made certain loan level representations and warranties in connection with approximately $165 billion of residential mortgage loans that were originally sold or deposited into private-label securitizations by Washington Mutual. Of the $165 billion, approximately $81 billion has been repaid. In addition, approximately $50 billion of the principal amount of such loans has liquidated with an average loss severity of 59%. Accordingly, the remaining outstanding principal balance of these loans as of December 31, 2015, was approximately $33 billion, of which $6 billion was 60 days or more past due. The Firm believes that any repurchase obligations related to these loans remain with the FDIC receivership.

For additional information regarding litigation, see Note 31.

Loans sold with recourse

The Firm provides servicing for mortgages and certain commercial lending products on both a recourse and nonrecourse basis. In nonrecourse servicing, the principal credit risk to the Firm is the cost of temporary servicing advances of funds (i.e., normal servicing advances). In recourse servicing, the servicer agrees to share credit risk with the owner of the mortgage loans, such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or a private investor, insurer or guarantor. Losses on recourse servicing predominantly occur when foreclosure sales proceeds of the property underlying a defaulted loan are less than the sum of the outstanding principal balance, plus accrued interest on the loan and the cost of holding and disposing of the underlying property. The Firm’s securitizations are predominantly nonrecourse, thereby effectively transferring the risk of future credit losses to the purchaser of the mortgage-backed securities issued by the trust. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the unpaid principal balance of loans sold with recourse totaled $4.3 billion and $6.1 billion, respectively. The carrying value of the related liability that the Firm has recorded, which is representative of the Firm’s view of the likelihood it will have to perform under its recourse obligations, was $82 million and $102 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Other off-balance sheet arrangements

Indemnification agreements – general

In connection with issuing securities to investors, the Firm may enter into contractual arrangements with third parties that require the Firm to make a payment to them in the event of a change in tax law or an adverse interpretation of tax law. In certain cases, the contract also may include a termination clause, which would allow the Firm to settle the contract at its fair value in lieu of making a payment under the indemnification clause. The Firm may also enter into indemnification clauses in connection with the licensing of software to clients (“software licensees”) or when it sells a business or assets to a third party (“third-party purchasers”), pursuant to which it indemnifies software licensees for claims of liability or damages that may occur subsequent to the licensing of the software, or third-party purchasers for losses they may incur due to actions taken by the Firm prior to the sale of the business or assets. It is difficult to estimate the Firm’s maximum exposure under these indemnification arrangements, since this would require an assessment of future changes in tax law and future claims that may be made against the Firm that have not yet occurred. However, based on historical experience, management expects the risk of loss to be remote.

Card charge-backs

Commerce Solutions, Card’s merchant services business, is a global leader in payment processing and merchant acquiring.

Under the rules of Visa USA, Inc., and MasterCard International, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., is primarily liable for the amount of each processed card sales transaction that is the subject of a dispute between a cardmember and a merchant. If a dispute is resolved in the cardmember’s favor, Commerce Solutions will (through the cardmember’s issuing bank) credit or refund the amount to the cardmember and will charge back the transaction to the merchant. If Commerce Solutions is unable to collect the amount from the merchant, Commerce Solutions will bear the loss for the amount credited or refunded to the cardmember. Commerce Solutions mitigates this risk by withholding future settlements, retaining cash reserve accounts or by obtaining other security. However, in the unlikely event that: (1) a merchant ceases operations and is unable to deliver products, services or a refund; (2) Commerce Solutions does not have sufficient collateral from the merchant to provide customer refunds; and (3) Commerce Solutions does not have sufficient financial resources to provide customer refunds, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., would recognize the loss.

Commerce Solutions incurred aggregate losses of $12 million, $10 million, and $14 million on $949.3 billion, $847.9 billion, and $750.1 billion of aggregate volume processed for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Incurred losses from merchant charge-backs are charged to other expense, with the offset recorded in a valuation allowance against accrued interest and accounts receivable on the Consolidated balance sheets. The carrying value of the valuation allowance was $20 million and $4 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, which the Firm believes, based on historical experience and the collateral held by Commerce Solutions of $136 million and $174 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, is representative of the payment or performance risk to the Firm related to charge-backs.

Clearing Services – Client Credit Risk

The Firm provides clearing services for clients by entering into securities purchases and sales and derivative transactions, with CCPs, including ETDs such as futures and options, as well as OTC-cleared derivative contracts. As a clearing member, the Firm stands behind the performance of its clients, collects cash and securities collateral (margin) as well as any settlement amounts due from or to clients, and remits them to the relevant CCP or client in whole or part. There are two types of margin. Variation margin is posted on a daily basis based on the value of clients’ derivative contracts. Initial margin is posted at inception of a derivative contract, generally on the basis of the potential changes in the variation margin requirement for the contract.

As clearing member, the Firm is exposed to the risk of nonperformance by its clients, but is not liable to clients for the performance of the CCPs. Where possible, the Firm seeks to mitigate its risk to the client through the collection of appropriate amounts of margin at inception and throughout the life of the transactions. The Firm can also cease providing clearing services if clients do not adhere to their obligations under the clearing agreement. In the event of non-performance by a client, the Firm would close out the client’s positions and access available margin. The CCP would utilize any margin it holds to make itself whole, with any remaining shortfalls required to be paid by the Firm as a clearing member.

The Firm reflects its exposure to nonperformance risk of the client through the recognition of margin payables or receivables to clients and CCPs, but does not reflect the clients’ underlying securities or derivative contracts on its Consolidated Financial Statements.

It is difficult to estimate the Firm’s maximum possible exposure through its role as a clearing member, as this would require an assessment of transactions that clients may execute in the future. However, based upon historical experience, and the credit risk mitigants available to the Firm, management believes it is unlikely that the Firm will have to make any material payments under these arrangements and the risk of loss is expected to be remote.

For information on the derivatives that the Firm executes for its own account and records in its Consolidated Financial Statements, see Note 6.

Exchange & Clearing House Memberships

The Firm is a member of several securities and derivative exchanges and clearing houses, both in the U.S. and other countries, and it provides clearing services. Membership in some of these organizations requires the Firm to pay a pro rata share of the losses incurred by the organization as a result of the default of another member. Such obligations vary with different organizations. These obligations may be limited to members who dealt with the defaulting member or to the amount (or a multiple of the amount) of the Firm’s contribution to the guarantee fund maintained by a clearing house or exchange as part of the resources available to cover any losses in the event of a member default. Alternatively, these obligations may be a full pro-rata share of the residual losses after applying the guarantee fund. Additionally, certain clearing houses require the Firm as a member to pay a pro rata share of losses resulting from the clearing house’s investment of guarantee fund contributions and initial margin, unrelated to and independent of the default of another member. Generally a payment would only be required should such losses exceed the resources of the clearing house or exchange that are contractually required to absorb the losses in the first instance. It is difficult to estimate the Firm’s maximum possible exposure under these membership agreements, since this would require an assessment of future claims that may be made against the Firm that have not yet occurred. However, based on historical experience, management expects the risk of loss to be remote.

Guarantees of subsidiaries

In the normal course of business, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (“Parent Company”) may provide counterparties with guarantees of certain of the trading and other obligations of its subsidiaries on a contract-by-contract basis, as negotiated with the Firm’s counterparties. The obligations of the subsidiaries are included on the Firm’s Consolidated balance sheets or are reflected as off-balance sheet commitments; therefore, the Parent Company has not recognized a separate liability for these guarantees. The Firm believes that the occurrence of any event that would trigger payments by the Parent Company under these guarantees is remote.

The Parent Company has guaranteed certain debt of its subsidiaries, including both long-term debt and structured notes. These guarantees are not included in the table on page 291 of this Note. For additional information, see Note 21.

JPMorgan Chase Financial Company LLC (“JPMFC”), a direct, 100%-owned finance subsidiary of the Parent Company, was formed on September 30, 2015, for the purpose of issuing debt and other securities in offerings to investors. Any securities issued by JPMFC will be fully and unconditionally guaranteed by the Parent Company, and these guarantees will rank on a parity with the Firm’s unsecured and unsubordinated indebtedness. As of December 31, 2015, no securities had been issued by JPMFC.