Jamie Dimon runs America’s biggest and most successful bank: JP Morgan Chase. That makes him the boss of 300,000 people across more than 60 countries. He’s the only CEO of a major bank to have been in his role since before the financial crisis. But there is a question about what he does next—Mr Dimon’s enthusiasm to talk policy has led to speculation that his next act could be political.
On this week’s podcast, Mr Dimon speaks to The Economist’s editor-in-chief Zanny Minton Beddoes about recession, China and what he does next.
Sign up for our new weekly newsletter dissecting the big themes in markets, business and the economy at www.economist.com/moneytalks 
For full access to print, digital and audio editions, subscribe to The Economist at www.economist.com/podcastoffer

 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hundreds of Fortune 500 and Global 2000 companies work with GEP to transform their supply chain and procurement operations.

GEP's unified digital platforms, smart, intuitive software that business users love, drive up adoption, user satisfaction, and productivity.

GEP helps enterprises drive real digital transformation and achieve amazing results.

Jamie Dimon has run JP Morgan for almost 18 years, earning himself a reputation as 1 of the most respected CEOs on Wall Street and in America.

But there has been speculation that his sights are set on even higher office.

Would you vote for Jamie Dimon for president?

His annual shareholder letter, required reading on Wall Street, often reads more like a political manifesto than a memo to investors.

This is part of the quote from the letter.

America remains divided within its own borders, and its global leadership role is being challenged outside of its borders.

He possesses plenty of skills that might be useful in the job.

He has efficiently managed a vast organisation with more than a quarter of a million employees.

Remember, JP Morgan has a workforce of about

Having dodged the risks that failed other banks during the global financial crisis or the mini-crisis of 2023, his practice of maintaining a fortress balance sheet meant he could acquire other failed banks, both in 2008 and this year.

First Republic getting billions from the nation's blue chip banks to shore up its balance sheet.

This on the 15th anniversary of JP Morgan's fire sale purchase of Bear Stearns.

All this has resulted in soaring valuations for JPMorgan.

Under his tenure, shareholders have earned average annual returns of

But in some ways, his success is also a challenge.

Jamie Dimon is a man who likes to keep busy, building up a business and solving its problems.

This week, Wall Street's most celebrated boss talks to The Economist about recession, China and what he might do next.

You're listening to Money Talks from The Economist, our weekly podcast on the markets, the economy and the world of business.

And in today's show, an interview with a man who has spent close to 2 decades running what is now America's most successful bank.

First, does he believe that the 2023 banking crisis is over?

Then, what does he think about the state of American politics?

I would worry about another Trump presidency.

And finally, what is next for Jamie Dimon?

I was in Istanbul and Cappadocia, which though sort of in Asia, is not part of my coverage remit.

And now you're somewhere almost equally as exotic.

My hometown, the Istanbul of Western Europe, as people call it.

You have had a bit of an interesting time as well, Alice.

Yes, this is why I made the trip up to New York last week.

After we finished taping Money Talks, I went to go grab breakfast with our editor-in-chief, Zannie Minton-Beddoes, before we both headed over to JPMorgan's offices on Madison Avenue, where Zannie was set to sit down with Jamie Dimon.

Obviously, Jamie Dimon is this kind of towering figure in finance.

He's probably 1 of the few people on Wall Street whose name is familiar beyond just finance nerds.

Yes, and that's partly because he's just been around for such a long time.

He's the only major CEO on Wall Street who was in his seat before the financial crisis kicked off.

And so what exactly did Zannie want to talk to him about?

In many ways he's kind of an unusual bank CEO.

His interests and the topics he wants to talk about often stretch far beyond banking or other things that seem straightforwardly related to the running of America's biggest bank.

So not just things like the banking crisis or where interest rates are headed and how the economy is doing.

He writes these long annual shareholder letters about things like public policy or climate change.

And so obviously she did talk to him about banks and the economy, but she also wanted to get his views on by dynamics and industrial policy, what he thinks is the rise of China and ask him about his plans if he ever stops running JP Morgan.

And Jamie Dimon has this reputation for being both clever and charming, but also occasionally a bit brash.

Yeah, he is a no-nonsense, pragmatic kind of guy.

You know, he's much less interested in talking about whether he's a Republican or a Democrat, and much more interested in talking about what policies might work to achieve goals he professes to care about, like social mobility or how to interact with China.

He definitely does get kind of worked up about certain topics, like how he believes in free markets or thinks the concept of stakeholder Capitalism is a method for humanising business.

And he can get pretty forceful about the things that he cares about.

But it's often in a way that makes him sort of seem authentic and candid rather than aggressive.

I'd argue that it's kind of part of his charm.

But with all that said, shall we hear the first half of Zannie's conversation with him?

Jamie Dimon, thanks so much for joining The Economist.

You have now run JPMorgan Chase, America's most successful, biggest bank for 18 years.

There was too much leverage in the system.

There wasn't too much leverage this time.

We had a trillion dollars in mortgage problems last time.

There's a problem in plain sight, which is some interest rate exposure, some of these uninsured deposits that kind of ran like a flock of birds.

I think that most of it has been handled.

And I think the only but I'd put in there is rates go up from here and they might, it can rear its ugly head again.

And I'm hoping that banks and other financial institutions are taking the time to think through what are their interest rate exposures if the whole yield curve goes to 6% or even 7%, can they handle it?

I think it was last October you said that the US would quite probably be in recession by mid-23.

Even in your letter to shareholders, you talked about dark storm clouds ahead.

Is the US actually now going to skirt a recession?

What's skirted is that a lot of, there was so much fiscal, this is my opinion looking back, fiscal monetary stimulus that's part of the reason we're still very strong.

And consumers have money, They have a trillion dollars more in their checking accounts.

And we think sometime around the end of the year, and this is where we kind of missed to go back a year ago, that excess money will be spent.

But wages are going up, not enough for inflation.

Home Prices up for 10 or 15 years, stock price up for 10 or 15 years.

Even if we go into a recession, consumers are in great shape.

But I still think there's some very serious things in front of us.

But this war in Ukraine, oil, gas, food, migration, some small nations who are struggling quite a bit, quantitative tightening, which we've never had, and inflation may go up.

I think the odds of rates going higher from here are higher than what other people think.

All these things may mitigate and go away, and we'll all have a deep sigh of relief, I wouldn't count on that.

You wouldn't count on that unless you think it's probable that there'll be a recession within the next 6 months?

I look at possibilities and probabilities and all that.

I'm much more worried about some of these other serious things getting worse.

The war in Ukraine, spreading out, nuclear blackmail, food doesn't get delivered, starvation in Africa.

In the back of my mind, I just can't get past the notion we've never had it before.

We've never had quantitative easing like this before.

We've never had quantitative tightening before.

I think the effects of that in the market may be more serious than other people think.

And you think the Fed is going to have to tighten more than people may be expecting?

I think there's a good chance of that, yes.

The president has been out touting Bidenomics, yet his approval ratings on the economy are pretty crummy.

Do you think Bidenomics has been a success?

Look, I'm in favour for the first time in my life of some industrial policy for security reasons and for competitive reasons and stuff like that.

There shouldn't be social policy around that.

1 of the things I think the American public looks at is, is our government competent and effective?

And I think those are different questions than the IRA Act.

So how do you answer those last questions?

And also the fiscal spending, $5 trillion of excess fiscal spending over 2 years, some to counter COVID, but some was far more in excess of that, is causing the inflation.

So I don't know how you put that all together, but I think it's why people support some of the policies.

Even my Democratic friends, when I tell them about the government and effective policy and competence, and they all roll their eyes because they know that's not necessarily true.

I think we can probably both agree that there was too much of that, and that's part of what's caused the inflation.

But on the other aspects of biodynamics, the industrial policy, the bigger role of the state, You say for the first time in your life, you're in favor of industrial policy.

I mean, the record on this is pretty bad when you look around the world.

And I think when you have it, you should be very, very cautious.

I think the reason, national security, so just take chips.

If you believe we have to make chips here or in a friendly, non-adversarial place, they need help to be able to do that.

That's going to be the same for rare earths.

That's going to be the same for other things, which if we agree to announce the security.

I think there's some other issues that relate to competitiveness where if you want to have a competitive environment, and China is using state capitalism, state capital, forced mergers, their huge home market to compete, how do you make it fair for our companies and your companies?

And it may take a little bit of industrial policy, but it should be done really carefully.

I think when they write books about this 10 years from now, a lot is going to be about how it didn't work, ineffective, companies fiend at the trough, Solyndra is taking place again.

And so I would caution people, yes, do it, but be really careful.

So how would Dymanomics be different from Biodynamics?

Look, I think my view is, first of all, I'm a free enterprise person.

The most important part of free enterprise isn't capital, it's people.

The movement of people, the brain power of people, your ability to start and think and grow and move and things like that.

We haven't done a particularly good job in this country.

To give you a number, we grew from the last 20 years to 1.7% a year.

We should be criticizing ourselves, why wasn't it 3%?

I personally believe it's because we've done a terrible job in immigration, taxation, mortgages, affordable housing, healthcare, We have some of the best health care in the world, but in terms of keeping people healthy, obesity, diabetes, teaching kids that in school.

3% would mean the average American would have $15, 000 more GDP per person this year.

That would have paid for better safety nets.

It would have paid for more schooling, whatever you think we need to do more of.

But that list of things that you've laid out, it doesn't bear a huge amount of resemblance to the things that the administration is focusing on.

I mean, by economics, as you said, it's about industrial policy.

We all agree we need a better job in education.

We should be making it cheaper, not more expensive.

Kids should know if I graduate this certificate or this degree, I can get a job making $75, 000 a year.

Jobs lead to dignity, better outcomes, better social outcomes, more mobility.

I think in our society, we make fun sometimes of the burger flipper job.

That first job, it's the first rung in the ladder.

I would do things like expand the earned income tax credit, which is a little form of industrial policy, to negative income tax, I think would help society dramatically to get more hands in the lower paid, who would probably spend that money to take care of their families and their neighbourhoods, and like I said, better social outcomes.

So Tom, Mike, you know, 1 of the things I found interesting was his view on interest rates.

Markets seem to think there may be 1 more hike, but not really a meaningful move higher in interest rates.

And there has been this growing school of thought that the Fed might be done and everything, you know, stocks rallying, house prices stabilizing, seems to be a result of that.

So if his thinking is correct, there's more pain to come on that front maybe.

Yeah that was very telling but it was also interesting to hear him say that he's actually far more worried about issues like the war in Ukraine than he is about a recession in the US.

It's pretty clear that this is someone for whom a lot of attention really goes towards issues that are at best I think perpendicular to his day job which is perhaps 1 of the reasons he's so often seen as someone with ambitions beyond his banking career.

I found the difference very striking in talking to American CEOs.

I spend more of my time talking to executives in Asia and a lot of places where the level of openness to talk about government policy and potentially criticize the government is substantially lower.

And I feel like these are some comments that you wouldn't necessarily get from a European CEO either, because there's an element of, who cares what a bank CEO thinks about these various issues of policy.

So I find that sort of openness really fascinating.

And the role of an American business leader where you're not just free to engage on policy, but sort of almost expected to as a sort of figure of trust, yeah, I find it really fascinating.

And I suppose as an economist journalist, I'm obviously going to like appeal to free markets and free movement and whatnot, even if I'm not 100% sure there's a big American political coalition for those policies at the moment.

If you want to watch Zanny's full interview with Jamie Dimon, you can find that on our website where you can also find Alice's guest Schumpeter column about what he does next.

And you can read that piece and more for absolutely nothing by going to economist.com forward slash podcast offer for a free 30-day digital subscription.

That's if you're not a subscriber already.

After the break, we will hear more from Jamie Dimon about his views on China and the potential for a presidential run.

And registered before the end of July, will receive a €1, 500 top-up to your SEAI grant.

Contact BYD North Dublin, part of the MSL Motor Group.

Before the break, we heard the first half of The Economist's editor-in-chief Zannie Minton Beddoe's interview with Jamie Dimon, the long-serving boss of JPMorgan.

So far, he's talked about the mini-banking crisis, which took down the likes of Silicon Valley Bank and his newfound support for President Biden's industrial policy which promises hundreds of billions of dollars to US manufacturers.

That's where we pick up on the interview.

Let's talk a bit about the justification that even you think there is for industrial policy, which is national security concerns, particularly China.

You were in China recently and reportedly you said that Sino-US relationship was the most complex since the Second World War, the geopolitics around that.

Henry Kissinger, I had a long conversation with just a few weeks ago for his 100th birthday, and he said to us that he thought that we were on the path to great power confrontation.

I do know that talking to people, I mean, we should be talking to the Chinese and they should be talking to us.

This is going to take real tough negotiations to get it right so that you have, I kind of agree with the concept of de-risking, not decoupling, and what works and what doesn't work.

But I'm a firm believer if you opened up our borders, billions of people would move here.

If you opened up our markets, trillions of dollars would move here.

It's not true they'd move to other parts of the world.

So we should be looking at our own flaws and not always blaming other people.

They import 10 million barrels of oil a day.

And maybe they're caught up in a couple areas.

But the notion that somehow America has to be that afraid of Trump, we don't.

On the other hand, looking back 15 years, we all made a mistake.

We should have been thinking there's national security, unfair competition, and not just hoping it all ends up okay.

They've been doing that by 10 or 15 years.

If you look at their, how they think of it, supply chains, industries they want to dominate, they've been quite blunt about it, which I understand.

They're trying to do a good job for their own country.

If you're in Beijing, and I was in Beijing a couple of months ago, the view in Beijing is that the U.S.

And the view in Washington is that China is an aggressive, authoritarian regime that wants to create a world order that's kind of antithetical to democracies.

I think there's an element of truth to both of those.

Yeah, I was surprised how much I heard they were trying to keep them down.

Our goal should be to lift up America, do a great job, keep our Western alliances together, both for the military, i.e.

Ukraine, and to counter some of the bad guys out there.

But economically, we need an economic comprehensive strategy to that's trade Investment, you know even like the IRA Act which again I support most of it It wasn't done really thoughtfully with our allies who looked at that and said that is the most anti European thing we've ever done and you know, sometimes they complain too much, but they're also partially right.

So to me, we've got to keep that all together.

And we can do a lot of things unilateral.

It's just like they've done a lot of things unilaterally.

How you deal with trade and WTO investments, we can be tough and mature.

And there's a big difference between the 2.

How can you learn to trust each other if 1 side thinks the other is trying to keep them down?

And frankly, there is evidence for that, right?

I mean, What are these export controls on advanced semiconductors that are designed to ensure that China stays far behind the US in the cutting edge technologies of the 21st century?

I think if it related to national security, I, supersonic missiles, I understand why we do it.

If it relates to holding back the Chinese people, I understand why we shouldn't do it.

That's why I'm saying, you know, no country would give away their best military equipment to another country that they might go to war with.

And I don't think we've ever done this before.

So I think we're all struggling to figure out what we actually mean by that.

I think the government is, businesses are, but going and talking to each other is the first way to say, what really matters, what's important, what protects the United States.

And since World War II, the US has been the global hegemon leader of the free world.

You wrote in your article for the Wall Street Journal that the West needs American leadership.

But when you look at the US now, an unbelievably polarized country, the economy is doing well, but an incredibly politically polarized country, It looks like we're gearing up for another Trump-Biden rematch.

Is US politics capable of that kind of leadership?

See all Money Talks from The Economist transcripts on Applepodcasts

Money Talks: The Jamie Dimon interview