저자: DavidTepper · 외국인
요약 보기
은행 안전성 평가 기준(자본비율, 예금 구성, 리스크관리, 수익성, 경영진)을 설명하고, 2026년에 신뢰할 만한 3개 은행으로 JP모건, 뱅크오브아메리카, US뱅코프를 추천한다. 2008년 위기 및 2023년 은행 실패 사례를 근거로 든다. 주식 가격 방향에 대한 예측은 없다.
다듬은 글
Let me tell you something that might keep you up at night. Most people have no idea how vulnerable their money really is. They deposit their savings into a bank. They see a number on a screen and they assume it is safe. They assume the bank is solid. They assume nothing can go wrong. But I've been in this business for over 30 years.
I watched banks collapse during the financial crisis. I watched supposedly rock solid institutions evaporate overnight. I made $7 billion in 2009 by understanding which banks would survive and which wouldn't. And I can tell you with absolute certainty that not all banks are created equal. In 2023, we saw three major bank failures in a matter of weeks.
Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, First Republic. These weren't tiny community banks. These were substantial institutions with billions in deposits. and they failed because of basic riskmanagement failures that anyone paying attention could have seen coming. So when people ask me where to put their money, I take that question very seriously because choosing the wrong bank isn't just an inconvenience.
It can be a catastrophe. Yes, FDIC insurance covers up to $250,000 per depositor. But if you have more than that, or if you are a business with operating capital, or if you just don't want the hassle and stress of a bank failure, choosing the right bank matters enormously. Today, I am going to tell you the only three banks I would trust with my money in 2026.
Not because they pay the highest interest rates, not because they have the slickest apps, because they have the balance sheet strength, the risk management, and the business models that will survive whatever comes next. Let me take you back to 2008 to explain why this matters so much to me personally.
When Lehman Brothers collapsed in September of that year, the entire financial system came within days of complete failure. Money market funds were breaking the buck. Commercial paper markets froze. Banks stopped lending to each other because nobody trusted anybody's balance sheet. I was watching this unfold in real time.
I was seeing institutions that had existed for a hundred years suddenly fighting for survival. Bear Sterns, a firm founded in 1923. Gone in a weekend, Lehman Brothers, a firm that had survived the Great Depression. Bankruptcy Washington Mutual, the largest savings and loan in American history, seized by regulators.
And it wasn't just the famous names. Thousands of smaller banks failed in the years that followed. Banks that families had trusted for generations. Banks where people had their life savings. banks that everyone assumed were safe. The lesson I took from that experience is that bank safety is never guaranteed.
It has to be evaluated, analyzed, continuously monitored. You cannot assume that because a bank has been around for 50 years, it will be around tomorrow. You cannot assume that because a bank is big, it is safe. You have to look at the fundamentals. Before I reveal the three banks, let me explain what I look for.
Because understanding the criteria matters more than memorizing names. Banks change, conditions change. If you understand what makes a bank trustworthy, you can evaluate any bank at any time. The first thing I look at is capital ratios. This is the most important factor. Capital is the cushion that absorbs losses.
When loans go bad, when investments decline, that loss comes out of the bank's capital. If there is enough capital, the bank survives. If there is not enough capital, the bank fails. Think of capital like the equity in your house. If you owe 200,000 on a house worth 300,000, you have 100,000 in equity.
That equity is your cushion. If the house falls in value by 50,000, you are still okay. You still have 50,000 in equity. But if the house falls by 150,000, you are underwater. You owe more than the house is worth. Banks work the same way. Their capital is their cushion against losses. The more capital, the bigger the cushion, the safer the bank.
The key ratio is called the common equity tier 1 ratio or CT1. This measures the highest quality capital relative to risk. Weighted assets. Regulators require large banks to maintain C1 ratios above certain minimums, typically around 7 to 8% including buffers. But I want to see banks well above the minimums.
I want doubledigit C1 ratios. Banks that are so well capitalized that even a severe recession won't threaten their solveny. During the financial crisis, banks with strong capital positions survived. Banks with weak capital positions failed or needed bailouts. It really was that simple. Capital is the single best predictor of whether a bank will survive adversity.
The second thing I look at is deposit composition. Not all deposits are created equal. Some deposits are sticky, meaning customers keep them at the bank for years regardless of what competitors offer. These are typically core deposits from retail customers and small businesses. People who have their checking accounts, their savings, their relationships with the bank, other deposits are flighty, large institutional deposits, uninsured deposits above the FDIC limit.
Deposits that came in purely because the bank offered high interest rates. These deposits can leave overnight if anything spooks the depositors. That is exactly what happened at Silicon Valley Bank. Their depositor base was concentrated in tech startups and venture capital firms. When rumors of trouble started, those sophisticated depositors pulled their money immediately, creating a classic bank run.
In a matter of hours, tens of billions of dollars flowed out. No bank can survive that kind of outflow. The bank run happened so fast because of technology. In the old days, you had to physically go to a bank to withdraw your money. that created friction. Bank runs happened over days or weeks, giving regulators time to intervene.
Now with mobile banking and electronic transfers, you can move your entire balance in minutes. That speed makes flighty deposits even more dangerous. I want banks with diversified, sticky deposit bases. Banks where the average deposit is well under the FDIC limit. banks where customers have multiple relationships, checking, savings, loans, credit cards, investments, and won't leave over a quarter point difference in rates.
The third thing I look at is asset quality and risk management. What has the bank been doing with its deposits? Have they been making conservative loans to creditworthy borrowers? or have they been reaching for yield, making risky loans, or buying longduration securities that are vulnerable to interest rate changes?
Silicon Valley Bank failed partly because they invested heavily in long-term bonds when rates were low. When rates rose, those bonds lost enormous value. The bank had unrealized losses that exceeded its capital. When depositors got nervous and started withdrawing, the bank had to sell those bonds at losses which wiped out its capital.
This was a basic riskmanagement failure. Any competent banker knows that long duration assets create interest rate risk. There are ways to hedge that risk. There are ways to limit exposure. Silicon Valley Bank did neither. They made a huge bet that interest rates would stay low forever. And when that bet went wrong, the bank failed.
I want banks that manage interest rate risk carefully. Banks that don't have huge unrealized losses lurking on their balance sheets. Banks [snorts] that make sensible loans and maintain conservative underwriting standards. Banks that don't assume the current environment will last forever. The fourth thing I look at is profitability and business model sustainability.
A bank needs to make money to build capital and absorb losses. Banks that are consistently profitable can weather storms. They can retain earnings, build their cushion, invest in their business. Banks that are marginally profitable or losing money are one bad quarter away from trouble. I also want business models that make sense for the future.
Banks that are investing in technology, banks that have diverse revenue streams, banks that aren't overly dependent on any single business line or customer type. The banking industry is changing rapidly. Digital competition is increasing. Margins are under pressure. Banks that aren't adapting will struggle.
I want banks that are spending on technology that are improving their customer experience that are positioned to compete in the banking industry of 2030, not just 2020. Five, the fifth thing I look at is management quality and culture. This is harder to quantify but equally important. Does management have a track record of prudent decisionmaking?
Do they prioritize long-term stability over short-term profits? Do they have a culture of risk awareness throughout the organization? The best capitalized bank in the world can be destroyed by management that takes stupid risks. Conversely, excellent management can navigate a mediocre bank through difficult times.
Management matters enormously. When I evaluate banks, I read their conference calls, their annual reports, their risk disclosures. I want to understand how management thinks about risk. Are they humble about uncertainty? Do they stress test for adverse scenarios? Do they acknowledge what could go wrong?
Or are they overconfident, dismissive of risks, focused only on growth? The best bank managers I've known are paranoid. They're always thinking about what could go wrong. They're always preparing for bad outcomes. They sleep well at night because they've done the work to protect their institutions. That paranoia is exactly what I want in the people managing my money.
Now, let me tell you about the three banks that pass all of these tests. The three banks I would trust with my money in 2026. The first bank is JP Morgan Chase. This is the largest bank in the United States by assets. And in my view, it is also the strongest. Let me tell you why. Start with capital JP Morgan Cat ratio consistently runs in the 15 to 16% range.
That is nearly double the regulatory minimum. They have so much excess capital that they regularly return billions to shareholders through dividends and buybacks while still maintaining fortress level ratios. To put this in perspective, JP Morgan could absorb losses that would wipe out most other banks and still remain solvent.
Their capital buffer is that large. When I think about what could go wrong in the economy, what kind of recession could hit, what kind of credit losses could materialize, JP Morgan has the capital to survive anything I can imagine. Their deposit base is extraordinary. They have over $2 trillion in deposits spread across millions of consumer accounts, small business accounts, and corporate relationships.
The average deposit size is well under the FDIC limit. These are sticky relationship-based deposits that don't flee at the first sign of trouble. During the 2023 banking crisis, while regional banks were seeing massive outflows, JP Morgan actually gained deposits. Money flowed from weaker banks to stronger banks and JP Morgan was the primary beneficiary.
That is what happens when you are the fortress. In times of fear, people run to safety and JP Morgan is perceived correctly as the safest place for deposits. Their risk management is legendary and I don't use that word lightly. Jaime Diamond, the CEO, has built a culture of risk awareness that permeates the organization.
They stress test constantly. They prepare for scenarios that other banks don't even consider. They have chief risk officers who have real authority to say no. When the financial crisis hit, JP Morgan was the bank that absorbed failing competitors. They took over Bear Sterns. They took over Washington Mutual.
They were the solution, not the problem. That wasn't luck. That was decades of building a riskmanagement culture that kept them strong when others were weak. Their profitability is outstanding. They consistently generate returns on equity above 15%. often approaching 20%. Their efficiency ratio, which measures costs relative to revenue, is among the best in the industry.
They make money in good times and bad times across different interest rate environments across different economic conditions. That consistent profitability allows them to build capital, invest in technology, pay dividends, and buy back shares. It creates a virtuous cycle where strength begets more strength.
Their business is diversified across consumer banking, commercial banking, investment banking, and asset management. No single business line dominates. If one area struggles, the others compensate. That diversification provides stability that more focused banks lack. And their technology investments have been massive.
They spend over $15 billion per year on technology. Their mobile app is excellent. Their fraud detection is sophisticated. Their payment systems are state-of-the-art. Their position for whatever the future of banking looks like. Now, I'll acknowledge that JP Morgan isn't perfect. No bank is. They've paid billions in regulatory fines over the years for various issues.
They're so large that they're subject to additional capital requirements and regulatory scrutiny. Their interest rates on savings accounts are typically below what smaller banks or online banks offer. But when I am thinking about safety, about where to put money, I absolutely cannot afford to lose. JP Morgan is my first choice.
They will be standing after any storm. They will survive any recession. They have the capital, the management, and the business model to endure whatever comes. The second bank I would trust is Bank of America. This might surprise some people. Bank of America struggled during the financial crisis. They had to raise capital.
They made some questionable acquisitions, most notably countrywide, which brought them billions in mortgage related losses and legal costs. They were not the pillar of strength that JP Morgan was, but that was more than 15 years ago. The bank today is fundamentally different from the bank that struggled in 2008 and 2009.
Let me tell you what has changed. First, they've rebuilt their capital position dramatically. Their CT1 ratio is now in the 11 to 12% range, well above regulatory requirements. They've shed risky assets and focused on core businesses. The balance sheet is much cleaner than it was. The countrywide disaster actually taught them valuable lessons.
They saw firsthand what happens when you make bad acquisitions, when you take risks. You don't fully understand when you prioritize growth over prudence. Those lessons have shaped how they operate today. Second, their deposit franchise is exceptional. They have nearly $2 trillion in deposits, primarily from retail customers and small businesses.
Their customer base is enormous and diversified. They have relationships that span decades. These deposits are sticky and exactly the way I want. Bank of America has one of the largest branch networks in the country with locations in virtually every major metropolitan area. Those physical branches create relationships.
People who have banked at the same branch for 20 years, who know their banker by name aren't going to move their accounts because an online bank offers a quarter point more on savings. Third, their digital transformation has been remarkable. Their mobile banking app consistently ranks among the best in the industry.
Erica, their virtual assistant, handles hundreds of millions of customer interactions per year. They've embraced technology in ways that have improved efficiency and customer experience simultaneously. What is impressive is that they've done this digital transformation while maintaining their physical presence.
They understand that different customers want different things. Some want the convenience of mobile banking. Others want the option of walking into a branch. Bank of America offers both forth. Their wealth management business through Meil Lynch provides diversified revenue streams and deep customer relationships.
High- netw worth clients with investment accounts are unlikely to move their deposits elsewhere. This creates a stable funding base that is even stickier than ordinary deposits. The integration of banking and wealth management creates cross selling opportunities that strengthen relationships. If you have your investments at Merrill, you are likely to have your banking at Bank of America.
If you have a mortgage with Bank of America, you might consider their investment products. These connections make customers harder to poach. Fifth, and this is important, they've become much more conservative in their risk-taking. The lessons of the financial crisis clearly left a mark. Their loan portfolio is higher quality.
Their interest rate risk management is more sophisticated. They're not reaching for yield or making aggressive bets. Brian Moahan, the CEO since 2010, has been steady and focused. He is not flashy. He doesn't seek headlines. He doesn't make bold pronouncements or aggressive acquisitions. He just runs the bank well.
quarter after quarter, year after year. That is exactly what I want in a bank CEO. Bank of America does have some vulnerabilities. They have significant unrealized losses on their securities portfolio. A consequence of buying bonds when rates were low. These losses don't impact the bank as long as they can hold the securities to maturity.
But they would matter if the bank faced a liquidity crisis. I don't think that is likely given their deposit strength, but it is worth acknowledging. Still, when I evaluate the total picture, Bank of America is a bank I would trust with my money. They have the scale, the capital, and the management to survive whatever economic environment we face in 2026 and beyond.
The third bank I would trust is US Bankorp, which operates under the US Bank brand. This is a different kind of bank than JP Morgan or Bank of America. It is smaller, more regional, more focused, but in many ways that focus is a strength. Let me explain why US Bankorp makes my list. First, their capital position is strong.
Their Cat 1 ratio runs in the 10 to 11% range, comfortably above regulatory requirements. They have the cushion to absorb losses and remain solvent through a recession. Second, their business model is simple and sustainable. They focus on basic banking, taking deposits, and making loans. They're not trying to compete with Goldman Sachs and investment banking.
They're not making complex derivatives bets. They're not chasing the latest financial innovation. They just do bread and butter banking really well. There is something to be said for simplicity. The banks that got in trouble during the financial crisis were often the ones that had wandered into complex businesses they didn't fully understand.
They'd created structured products. They'd made exotic derivatives bets. They'd expanded into areas far from their core competency. US Bankorp never did that. They stayed focused on what they know, basic banking for consumers and businesses. That focus kept them out of trouble when others were struggling.
Third, their efficiency is outstanding. US Bankorp consistently has one of the best efficiency ratios in the industry, meaning they convert a high percentage of revenue into profit. This isn't about being cheap. It is about running a well-managed operation where every dollar is spent productively. That efficiency creates a margin of safety.
Even if revenues decline, even if credit losses increase, US Bankorp can remain profitable when less efficient competitors are struggling. Their cost discipline gives them resilience. Fourth, their credit quality has been excellent through multiple cycles. They underwrite conservatively. They don't chase loan growth by loosening standards.
When competitors are making questionable loans to hit growth targets, US Bankorp is willing to grow more slowly to maintain quality. When recessions hit, their loan losses are typically lower than peers because they were more careful about who they lend to in the first place. The loans they make are to creditworthy borrowers who can repay even in difficult times.
Fifth, they have a strong presence in corporate trust services, payments, and other feebased businesses that diversify revenue beyond traditional banking. These businesses are less interest rate sensitive and provide stable earnings regardless of the rate environment. Their payments business in particular is a hidden gem.
They process enormous volumes of transactions for merchants, corporations, and government entities. This generates steady fee income that doesn't depend on interest rates or loan growth. It is a stable recurring revenue stream. Six, their culture is genuinely risk. aware. This is a bank that avoided most of the excesses that brought down others during the financial crisis.
They didn't load up on toxic mortgages. They didn't make crazy bets. They didn't chase growth into areas they didn't understand. They just kept doing what they do well. And they came through the crisis in much better shape than most of their peers. That is not luck. That is culture. The leadership at US Bankorp has been consistent and conservative.
They're not trying to be the biggest bank. They're trying to be the bestrun bank. They focus on execution, not empire building. That mentality produces better long-term results for depositors and shareholders alike. Thus, Bankorp is smaller than JP Morgan or Bank of America. They don't have the same national footprint.
Their branches are concentrated in the Midwest and West, but size isn't everything. A well-run midsize bank can be safer than a poorlyrun mega bank. Now, let me talk about what these three banks have in common because these commonalities reveal what really matters when evaluating any bank. All three have strong capital positions.
They have cushions well above regulatory minimums. They can absorb significant losses without threatening solvency. All three have sticky, diversified deposit bases. They're not dependent on flighty institutional money that can disappear overnight. They have millions of relationships with ordinary people and small businesses who aren't going to move their accounts based on rumors.
All three have conservative riskmanagement cultures. They're not reaching for yield. They're not making bets they don't understand. They're running basic banking operations well. All three have proven management teams with track records of navigating difficult environments. They've been tested by recessions, by financial crises, by interest rate swings.
They've proven they can manage through adversity. All three are consistently profitable with sustainable business models. They generate returns that allow them to build capital, pay dividends, and invest in the future. These are the characteristics that matter. Not which bank has the highest savings rate.
Not which bank has the slickest marketing. Not which bank is making headlines with the latest fintech partnership. Safety comes from capital, deposits, riskmanagement, leadership, and profitability. Everything else is secondary. I would avoid any bank that came through the recent stress with obvious problems.
Banks that needed emergency lending from the Fed. Banks that saw major deposit outflows. Banks that are rumored to be in trouble even if they survive, even if they're technically solvent. The stress reveals underlying weaknesses that could surface again. I would avoid banks with concentrated deposit bases.
Banks that rely heavily on one industry, one customer type, or one geographic region. Concentration creates vulnerability. When that one thing goes wrong, the whole bank is at risk. Silicon Valley Bank was concentrated in tech. When tech had problems, the bank had problems. I would avoid banks that have been growing aggressively by offering above market interest rates.
This is how banks get into trouble. They attract hot money that leaves as quickly as it came. They have to invest those deposits in something. And often they take too much risk trying to earn enough to pay those high rates. I would avoid banks with large unrealized losses relative to their capital. Yes, these losses are on paper.
Yes, they don't matter if the bank can hold assets to maturity. But if anything forces the bank to sell, those paper losses become real losses. It is a vulnerability I don't want. I would avoid banks with management that seems more focused on growth and flashiness than on risk management and stability.
Red flags include aggressive marketing, rapid expansion into new business lines, and press releases about being innovative and disruptive. These are fine for tech startups. They're warning signs for banks. Now, let me address some practical questions about how to use this information. First, how much should you have at any single bank?
The FDIC insurance limit is $250,000 per depositor per bank. If you have more than that, you should either spread it across multiple banks or make sure you understand the risks of having uninsured deposits. For the three banks I've recommended, I am comfortable having more than the FDIC limit because I believe these banks will remain solvent, but that is a personal risk tolerance decision.
If having uninsured deposits keeps you up at night, spread your money across multiple institutions. Second, what about credit unions? Credit unions are insured by the NCUA up to the same $250,000 limit. Some credit unions are very well-run and perfectly safe. Others have weaknesses similar to the banks I've warned about.
The same evaluation criteria apply. Look at capital deposits, risk management, and profitability. Just because it is a credit union doesn't automatically make it safe or unsafe. Third, what about online banks? Online banks can offer higher interest rates because they don't have branch expenses. Some are well capitalized and well-run.
Others are less stable. Again, apply the same criteria. Many online banks are actually subsidiaries or divisions of larger banks. So, look at the parent company's strength. If the online bank is backed by one of the strong institutions I've mentioned, you are probably fine forth. What about treasury bills and money market funds for safety?
Conscious investors treasury bills are actually safer than bank deposits because they're direct obligations of the US government, not claims on a private institution. Money market funds that invest in treasury securities have similar safety profiles. If you are extremely riskaverse and have amounts above the FDIC limit, treasuries might be a better choice than even the strongest bank deposits.
Let me share one more important lesson from my experience investing in banks during the financial crisis. I made $7 billion by buying bank stocks when everyone else was terrified. I bought Bank of America. I bought Croup. I bought Wells Fargo. People thought I was crazy. The consensus view was that the entire banking system was going to collapse.
But I had done my homework. I understood which banks had the capital to survive. I understood that the government couldn't let the major banks fail because the consequences would be too catastrophic. I understood that the stocks were priced for Armageddon, but Armageddon wasn't coming. The key insight was distinguishing between banks that were genuinely insolvent, meaning their losses exceeded their capital, versus banks that were facing a liquidity crisis, meaning they couldn't raise short-term funding, versus banks that were simply cheap because of panic selling.
Some banks were genuinely insolvent. They had made so many bad loans, held so many toxic securities that their losses wiped out their capital. These banks failed or needed bailouts that wiped out shareholders. Investing in these banks would have been a disaster. Other banks were facing liquidity problems but were fundamentally solvent.
Their assets exceeded their liabilities. They had capital. But the panic in the markets meant they couldn't roll over their short-term funding. These banks needed government support to survive. But once that support arrived, they recovered strongly. And some banks were simply caught up in the panic.
Their stock prices collapsed because everything was collapsing. But they had strong capital, stable deposits, conservative loan portfolios. They were going to survive regardless of what happened. These were the best investments. The lesson is that crisis creates opportunity, but only if you've done the analysis beforehand.
You have to know which banks are strong before the crisis hits. You have to understand the fundamentals. You have to have conviction based on analysis, not hope. That is why I spend so much time evaluating banks even in calm times. Because when the next crisis comes and there will be a next crisis, I want to know exactly which banks will survive.
I want to have my money with those banks before things get scary. And if I see opportunity to invest during the panic, I want to have the analysis already done so I can act quickly. The same lesson applies to your deposits. You should know right now, today, whether your bank is strong or weak. You shouldn't wait until there are rumors of trouble.
You shouldn't wait until you see lines forming outside branches. By then, it is too late. The time to evaluate is when everything seems fine. So, take an hour this weekend, look up your bank's financials, check their capital ratios, look at their deposit composition, read their annual report. If you find warning signs, move your money to a stronger institution.
If your bank checks all the boxes, you can sleep well knowing your money is safe. Let me also address the question of whether you should diversify across multiple banks. Some financial advisers recommend spreading your deposits across several banks, even if each balance is under the FDIC limit. The theory is that diversification is always good, that you shouldn't have all your eggs in one basket.
I have a different view. If you are putting your money in a truly strong bank, a JP Morgan or Bank of America or US Bankorp, diversification doesn't add much safety. These banks aren't going to fail. Having accounts at three strong banks instead of one strong bank doesn't make you meaningfully safer.
What diversification does do is add complexity. You have multiple accounts to manage, multiple statements to review, multiple banks to deal with, multiple apps, multiple login, multiple customer service lines. For most people, that complexity isn't worth it. Now, if you have deposits above the FDIC limit, diversification makes more sense.
Having 250,000 at each of three different banks means you are fully insured everywhere. That is valuable protection. And if you are not confident in your ability to evaluate banks, diversification provides insurance against your own judgment being wrong. If you spread your money across 10 banks and one of them fails, you've only lost 10%.
Assuming you are under the FDIC limit at each. But for someone who has done the analysis, who is confident in the strength of their bank, concentrating deposits at one strong institution is perfectly reasonable. That is what I do myself. Let me close with some perspective on why this matters so much.
Your bank deposits might seem like a mundane detail of your financial life. You have a checking account. You have some savings. The money sits there. You don't think about it much. But that money represents something real. It is your emergency fund. It is your down payment for a house. It is your child's college fund.
It is your retirement savings. It is the security that lets you sleep at night. When a bank fails, that security evaporates, at least temporarily, even if FDIC insurance eventually makes you whole. The stress and disruption are significant. You can't access your money when you need it. You have to deal with a failed bank resolution process.
Your automatic payments might bounce. Your direct deposits might be delayed. And if you have amounts above the FDIC limit, the consequences are much worse. You might not get all your money back. You might get it back over months or years, not immediately. For businesses, a bank failure can mean missing payroll, defaulting on obligations, even going out of business.
All of this is avoidable by simply choosing a strong bank in the first place. It costs you nothing to bank with JP Morgan instead of a weaker competitor. You might earn slightly less interest, but the safety is worth far more than a quarter point in yield. That is why I am so emphatic about bank selection.
The downside of choosing wrong is severe. The upside of choosing right is peace of mind that your money is absolutely certainly without question safe. JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and US Bankorp. These are the three banks I would trust with my money in 2020. Six. I've explained why. I've shown you what I look for.
Now, the decision is yours. Choose wisely. Your financial security depends on it.
Comments 0