Topic: Banking-Customer & Marketing Management
Report type: Corporate Client Profiling and Integrated Financial Services Solution (对公客户画像与综合金融服务方案)

JPMorgan Chase’s San Francisco branch is conducting a new round of refined client coverage and comprehensive financial service assessment for its key corporate clients, including the technology industry leader Salesforce, Inc. and its legal representative, Marc Benioff.

Based on this business context, please complete the following tasks:

1. Using publicly available information, construct a comprehensive client profile of Salesforce and its legal representative Marc Benioff (including corporate attributes, industry characteristics, financial and operating features, and personal influence);
2. Based on the client profile, analyze the client’s deeper potential needs across corporate banking services, cross-border finance, investment and financing, and high-end personal financial services;
3. From the perspective of a major U.S. commercial bank’s San Francisco branch, propose actionable and implementable client coverage and product allocation recommendations.

## Evaluation Criteria for JPMorgan Chase San Francisco Branch — Key Corporate Client (Salesforce & Marc Benioff): Refined Account Management and Comprehensive Financial Services Solution

The framework aims to deliver a systematic, executable, and quantitative evaluation of (i) an open-source intelligence (public information) profile around Salesforce (the enterprise) and Marc Benioff (the key individual), (ii) needs insights, and (iii) an operations/product implementation plan from the branch perspective. The rubric contains **4 primary dimensions and 14 secondary dimensions, totaling 100 points**, and is designed to support consistency between human review and LLM-based automated scoring.

---

### 1. Overall Client Profiling Quality (30 points)

#### (1) Completeness and Structure of the Company’s Baseline Profile (8 points)
- **7–8 points**: Clearly covers company nature and governance (listing status, key points on ownership/board structure), core business and product portfolio, customer mix and business model (key features such as subscription/renewals/deferred revenue or contract liabilities), geographic footprint and organizational structure; information is well-layered and can be directly mapped into bank CRM fields.
- **4–6 points**: Covers major elements but with loose structure; some key fields are missing (e.g., revenue composition, customer concentration, geographic/industry exposure).
- **0–3 points**: Generic description or remains at “company overview” level; lacks structured, actionable points usable for client management.

#### (2) Industry and Competitive Landscape Insights (7 points)
- **6–7 points**: Based on the company’s arena (enterprise software/CRM/cloud ecosystem/AI overlays, etc.), provides verifiable industry characteristics, growth drivers, cycles, and risks; clearly identifies key competitors and substitution relationships, and explains implications for bank credit, cash flows, and financing/investment needs.
- **3–5 points**: Industry description is broadly correct, but lacks competitive landscape, cyclicality, or mapping to financial needs.
- **0–2 points**: Industry view is vague or inconsistent with the company’s reality.

#### (3) Financial and Operating Characteristics (10 points)
- **9–10 points**: Uses public financial disclosures (e.g., 10-K/10-Q, investor presentations, earnings call commentary) to characterize revenue growth and mix, profitability/cash-flow quality, balance-sheet highlights (cash and investments, debt structure, buyback/dividend policy, etc.), and key operating metrics (RPO/contract liabilities/retention and customer expansion, where applicable); identifies key trend changes and explains drivers.
- **5–8 points**: Uses some financial data but definitions are unclear or lacks cash-flow/balance-sheet perspective; insufficient trend explanation.
- **0–4 points**: Almost no quantitative support or sources are unclear; conclusions are not verifiable.

#### (4) Key Individual (Marc Benioff) Profile and Influence Assessment (5 points)
- **5 points**: Clearly states his role and influence pathways in governance/strategy (title, decision power, public persona, major philanthropy/social initiatives footprint, etc.), and builds an “explainable linkage” to potential private banking/family governance needs without over-inference.
- **2–4 points**: Basic introduction is present, but influence assessment or linkage to financial needs is weak.
- **0–1 point**: No meaningful key-individual profile, or heavy speculation/contradiction with public information.

---

### 2. Potential Needs Insights and Opportunity Map (30 points)

#### (1) Identification of Core Corporate Banking and Transaction Banking Needs (10 points)
- **9–10 points**: Starting from cash-flow and operating scenarios, systematically identifies needs and prioritizes them by layers: cash management/liquidity, collections & payments and account structure, centralized payables, supplier payments and receivables, payroll and benefits-related services, short-term investments and liquidity management; clearly specifies “demand triggers” (e.g., M&A, international expansion, interest-rate regime shifts, buyback cadence, etc.).
- **5–8 points**: Covers several product points but lacks scenario-based decomposition or clear prioritization/triggers.
- **0–4 points**: Only lists products; lacks linkage to operating facts.

#### (2) Cross-Border Finance and Global Treasury Needs (8 points)
- **7–8 points**: Based on geographic revenue/cost structure, global entity footprint, and potential currency exposures, identifies needs such as FX/hedging, cross-border cash pooling, global account structures, tax and fund transfer constraints, cross-border collections and local clearing; highlights compliance and operating frictions (e.g., sanctions/AML, data and privacy, cross-border path complexity).
- **4–6 points**: Mentions cross-border needs but lacks specificity on exposure sources, currencies/regions, or compliance constraints.
- **0–3 points**: Cross-border section is generic or inconsistent with the client’s globalization profile.

#### (3) Deeper Needs in Financing/Investment, Capital Markets, and M&A (8 points)
- **7–8 points**: From perspectives including capital structure, valuation/buybacks, potential M&A strategy, convertible/bond financing, equity incentives and employee liquidity, proposes actionable financing/investment opportunities; distinguishes “branch-executable leads” vs. “items requiring investment bank/head office coordination,” and provides trigger signals and information sources.
- **4–6 points**: Identifies some financing/M&A needs but lacks linkage to financial facts or lacks executable triggers.
- **0–3 points**: Only generic talk of “financing/IPO/M&A,” with no evidence chain or obvious inapplicability.

#### (4) High-Net-Worth Personal Finance and Family Governance Needs (4 points)
- **4 points**: Within compliance and information-boundary constraints, proposes potential needs matching the key individual’s characteristics (wealth preservation, tax and philanthropy structuring, trusts/family governance, concentrated holding risk management, concentration and liquidity planning, etc.), and clearly states boundaries of “what the bank can/cannot do” plus trigger conditions.
- **2–3 points**: Provides directions but lacks boundaries, triggers, or verifiable signals.
- **0–1 point**: Oversteps boundaries, involves inaccessible private information, or fully ignores individual-side needs.

---

### 3. Branch-Perspective Operating Strategy and Implementability of Product Configuration (25 points)

#### (1) Client Coverage Model and Collaboration Mechanism Design (8 points)
- **7–8 points**: Clearly defines the San Francisco branch coverage approach (RM/industry team/product specialists), coordination mechanisms with head office/investment bank/transaction banking/private bank, client engagement paths (executive-level dialogue, CFO, treasury/tax/legal counterparts, etc.), and explains role division and execution cadence.
- **4–6 points**: Shows collaboration intent but remains conceptual; lacks role clarity or execution mechanism.
- **0–3 points**: Only starts from “what the bank can offer,” with no organizational/collaboration design.

#### (2) Product Portfolio and Solution Fit (10 points)
- **9–10 points**: Provides a “combinable and packageable” solution (transaction banking + credit + cross-border + capital markets/risk management + properly bounded coordination with HNW/personal services), and explains for each product the value proposition, prerequisites, customer benefits, and bank economics; avoids unrealistic one-size-fits-all “full bundle.”
- **5–8 points**: Product recommendations are broadly reasonable but lack bundling logic, prerequisites, or benefit/cost trade-offs.
- **0–4 points**: Product piling; mismatch with the client profile; or clearly not implementable.

#### (3) Execution Plan, Milestones, and Quantifiable KPIs (7 points)
- **6–7 points**: Provides a 30/60/90-day or quarterly execution plan including key meetings, document checklist, pilot scenarios, and implementation pathways; sets quantifiable KPIs (e.g., cash management penetration, FX volume, credit utilization, number of cross-border accounts implemented, wallet share, etc.) and a review/feedback loop.
- **3–5 points**: Has action items but timeline/KPIs are unclear, or lacks a closed-loop review mechanism.
- **0–2 points**: Only directional suggestions; no plan or measurement standard.

---

### 4. Data Credibility, Compliance/Risk Control, and Communication Standards (15 points)

#### (1) Reliability of Sources, Citations, and Consistency of Definitions (6 points)
- **5–6 points**: Key facts are traceable to credible sources (SEC filings, financial statements, authoritative media/research institutions, etc.) with clear citations; metric definitions (GAAP vs. non-GAAP, TTM vs. fiscal year, etc.) are properly specified; avoids misattribution.
- **3–4 points**: Sources are generally reliable but citations are incomplete, or there is minor risk of mixed definitions.
- **0–2 points**: Large amount of unsourced data or clear mis-citations that undermine credibility.

#### (2) Verifiability of Reasoning Chain and Awareness of “Public Information Boundary” (5 points)
- **4–5 points**: Clearly distinguishes facts, inferences, and assumptions; provides supporting evidence and verifiable signals for inferences; does not use private/internal information to force conclusions; complies with research ethics and client information boundaries.
- **2–3 points**: Some inferences lack support or boundary reminders are insufficient, but overall acceptable.
- **0–1 point**: Heavy speculation; treats assumptions as facts; or clearly oversteps by using inaccessible information.

#### (3) Identification of Compliance, Reputational Risk, and Conflicts of Interest (4 points)
- **4 points**: Clearly identifies and addresses key risk points: KYC/AML, sanctions and cross-border compliance, MNPI and investment-banking wall, client privacy and data security, ESG/reputational risk, related-party transactions and conflicts of interest; explains constraints on the solution and mitigation measures.
- **2–3 points**: Mentions compliance risks but lacks specificity or does not reflect practical impacts on the plan.
- **0–1 point**: Ignores compliance/reputational risks, or recommendations contain obvious compliance issues.