Jamie Dimon on What Kills Companies and The Key to Business Leadership | Titans and Disruptors

When I go to a meeting, I've done the pre-reads, and you get 100% of my attention, 100%, you know, none of this nodding off, none of this reading my mail. You know, if you have an iPad in front of me and it looks like you're reading your email or getting notifications, I tell you to close the damn thing. It's disrespectful.

For the past two decades, Jamie Dimon has led JP Morgan Chase as its CEO during periods of rapid change and even crisis. Through it, Dimon has built the largest US Bank and emerged as the smartest voice on the US and global economies. If we are not the preeminent military and the preeminent economy in 40 years, we will not be the reserve currency. His opinion and counsel are sought after by leaders across all sectors, from tariff impact to return-to-office mandates to best management practices. Dimon, who's led effectively, even through instability and hardship, including two major personal health episodes, says his goal now is to live deliberately. As many wonder what succession will look like at his bank, the economy is weakening. As part of that, he has three major priorities: his family, his country, and what he views as his personal contribution to the world. I sat down with Dimon to pick his brain on all of it and to bring you back the best advice to help you navigate your own lives and jobs.

So Jamie, you were in New York this morning giving great earnings reports, actually, and now you're here. It's the life of the CEO to be on the road. We appreciate your time with us. I just wanted to open with an economic snapshot from your vantage point. What's happening in the economy? What's happening in the global economy? What are the main signals you're looking at?

So first of all, welcome everybody. Thrilled to be here. Have a little larynx. I apologize for that. Look, the global economy is like inscrutable. So I'm going to tell you, but I want to point out, whenever you talk about it, we always say we're worried about this or uncertain about that. You can open the newspaper of any month of any year, of anything. It's always that way. Always. What you have to do is compare it to an average, you know. And I do think an average is more complicated. It's more complicated because of trade and tariffs. It's more complicated for huge global deficits. Inflation is not going away. The geopolitical situation, the remilitarization of the world. These are fairly serious things. You know, interest rates and I think the chance of surprise are pretty high.

Underneath that, if you look at America, other consumers doing fine, unemployment is good, wages not going up so much. Labor's got a little bit weaker. Wholesale credit has been good, but I suspect that's, you know, we spent, we borrowed and spent $10 trillion over the last six years. Of course, it's going to drive corporate profits and corporate credit so that may weaken. The whole world is a deficit issue, and so I'm, I'm kind of in the cautious category, and also may be caused by the fact that asset prices are high, you know, in some form of bubble territory. But that doesn't mean they can't go over 20% more. Credit spreads are historical lows. So it looks like the, you know, the market's world is pricing in, I'm going to call it a continued soft landing. And, you know, if you looked at next year, and I hate forecasting, what's the odds of recession? Well, in any one year, it's 20 or 30%. So, you know, I think the market's pricing in 10. I'd say 20 or 30% is probably more accurate, the chance of not being surprised by something next year.

And then you look at factors like tariffs. I look at it's just a straw on the camel's back. You know, it's not the one thing that's going to break the camel's back. It's always a confluence of factors that do that, and it's very hard. Maybe AI will one day figure it out, but it's very hard for human beings to consistently forecast real inflection points in the economy.

What are some of the longer-term cycles that you're keeping an eye on that may not be reflected as much in the numbers today, but you're a little bit worried?

That's a very important point. I always do future-back. People look at all the data today, unemployment, say, well, unemployment was good. Markets were good in '71, and then they crashed. That was true in '80, and then they crashed. That was true in '87, there was a crash. That was true in 1990, and it got down. So you can't look at current data. You've got to anticipate data. So here's some into some anticipatory data. Deficits are not going away, and that will bite one day. I don't know when. Inflation. What I see is healthcare prices going up 10%, food prices not going down. Immigration policies are inflationary. The remilitarization, the rules inflationary. The restructure to trade is inflationary. The capital needs from AI and and infrastructure is large, growing, and probably inflationary in the short run. So I, that's why I look at the risk is that rates go up, they don't. Inflation goes up, and the Fed can't raise, cuts rates anymore. Maybe has to reverse course. And I just, when I look at risk, I just put that on the table among all the possibilities of outcomes. And we are prepared for that more than most. In fact, if you look at all things being equal, all things being equal, make more money if interest rates go up. On the other hand, if interest rates go up because of inflation and there's stagflation, we will do much worse on credit volumes and a whole bunch of stuff I can't predict.

Can I play a game with you? What can I play a game? Sure. Can we play overvalued or undervalued? You could try. Okay, tell the press. You can ask whatever you want, and they say, whatever I want. Don't play game time to play a game.

So gold, overvalued or undervalued? I don't know. I mean, I'm not a gold buyer. It costs 4% to own it. It could easily go to $5,000 or $10,000 in environments like this. This is one of the few times in my life I said, semi-rational, to have some of your portfolio asset price. I, but asset prices are kind of high, so I'm not, yeah, in the back of my mind that cuts across almost everything at this point.

Bitcoin? I'm, I'm. My blockchain is real. Stablecoins may have a real use. We have the JP Morgan coin. Tokens will be real programmed money. All that will be real. I'm not going to say about Bitcoin, because then that's all I'm going to read about in the headlines the next, and then I get, you know, death threats and shit like that. So it's not, not a pit rock, but maybe a pit rock with TBD. But the underlying technology, you think? Yeah, I've always said that blockchain is a technology that we've all been yapping about for, you know, for 12 years, and it's not fully deployed, you know, because it's hard to deploy blockchain that we all agree and permissions and rules. And I do think, you know, we do use it. We use it intraday. Repo is, I think it's can replace certain tech, certain systems we all use that are clunky or late or not 24/7. Those are all legitimate complaints, and blockchain may be one of the things that fixes that. Other technologies can fix it too, by the way. It's not the only thing that can fix it, and sometimes it's a solution looking for a problem. We already move money real-time payments. Most of it moves digitally. In effect, you know, it runs through AML, KYC, risk systems. What happens? You can't just replace all that with a blockchain and think you're doing what regulators and governments want you to do. So it's a little more complicated than just it's going to replace everything.

Next, Nvidia? I can't comment on them, but there's some of these names that I just don't want to give specific stuff. Unbelievable company. AI itself is real. I know we're gonna talk about AI a little bit later, so I'll reserve that for that.

Okay, so then, what about OpenAI? This last one? Well, again, we're gonna talk about AI in general. That's next. Either way, I first of all, I think you should all use it to stop debating open, close, little miles. It's all that. It's gonna be faster, it's gonna get cheaper. You have specialized models. We have 2,000 people doing it. We've been doing it since 2012. We have hundreds of use cases. We can identify benefits of like, $2 billion, maybe two and a half hours tall today. You know, either cost savings or revenue enhancements, and it's just part of one, how we run the business today, just like big math was that before, and is making huge improvements to certain things. Other things are hard to measure, like Gen AI. You know, we have almost under 50,000 people using it a week on internal documents, for for report writing, for reviewing hundreds of, you know, thousands of legal documents, for summarizing things. It's just hard to tell the productivity. I do think it's real. I think in total, AI is real. Just like, if you go back to 1996, in total, the Internet was real. There are a lot of people in there. You could look at the whole thing like it was a bubble. Remember, crashed at one point. But out of that came Google, YouTube, Meta. So I think in total, will pay off. It's hard to know exactly which ones will and they won't be the ones you necessarily predict. Today. There may be some attributes for when it takes all that may not be true. I mean, we'll see over time how that works.

Yeah, I mean, I think that's completely true. The underlying, the hype is a real tech that is extremely transformative, and it's high capital usage, unlike the internet, so it's got different dynamics. The power may not be there. In some cases, bad guys, you can use it, but bad guys use the internet on social media, that used airplanes for bad things. And so I do think there should be proper, thoughtful regulations and guardrails to protect the public. It will eliminate jobs. I think people should stop sticking their head in the sand. So did tractors, and so did cars, and so did, and now it happens too fast. We, society, government, and businesses should figure out how we can save jobs, save people, retrain, income assist, you know, early early retirement is something. So you can't just take all these people and throw them on the street where the next job is making $30,000 a year, when they make $150, that you'll have a revolution. So we should be thoughtful about that. But in the meantime, you should get good at using it and deploy it, and we'll figure it out.

There's so much in there that I could dig into. Each of it is, I'm gonna try and tack a little bit at a time. One is your investment in AI as a company. There's been this well-cited MIT study that so many of these early corporate pilot programs of AI have just been giant money pits, and they haven't been that effective in generating real returns for companies. I know you just came out with a report that said you guys have invested about $2 billion in, you're getting about $2 billion back. It sounds like break-even point. Finally, and I was wrong about the $2 billion cost. It's considerably less than that. I think MIT, it's been, you have spent, I think MIT was talking about generative AI, not about AI. So most of the things that when we apply AI to AML, KYC, or risk or fraud, very specific things, or errors or customer service, it works. Reconciliations, you apply it, and sometimes by just improving your procedures, it's not even really AI, it's just part of the process improvement. You go in and all of a sudden your headcount's down 40% and your time to get something done is not 12 days, it's 12 hours or 12 minutes. So it absolutely works. You can overcount the cost savings, the revenues. It works for fraud. We know our fraud costs are coming down. Most people's going up. It works for, we spend $10 million a year marketing, you know, and we know it's gonna work on marketing. I mean, marketing by its nature is very inefficient. Put the stuff on the wall and see what happens, you know, and they'll be able to measure multiple different things. So and it can measure productivity. It reduces coding times for those who use it by 30%. That's all real. Generative AI is the other category where, that's where you really using generative AI to read documents. So you might, you know, you might have used it to figure out some of these questions here, it's hard to tell, like, you know, what do you say? What never? Yeah, but you can say, well, save me two hours. You know, what's that worth? Did you just spend two hours doing something else or so? We don't really know. And I think it's a mistake to try to calculate everything positive. We spend a lot of money getting data into the proper format so it could be used by AI. We're just doing it. We're not measuring how much it costs. We're just going to get it and, you know, proper database, et cetera, so. But it is completely real. And again, I think MIT is either wrong or was just generative AI. I think it was just generative AI.

Interesting. So did you have any big corporate failures, though, as you were figuring out how to make more efficiencies with AI? Any learnings?

No, we did something different. Where we, it's not in tech, even though them in tech are like deep partners, whatever they do, and tech does a lot of the heavy lifting. But the AI experts, data, think of the data CEOs and the data, data people are in this area, so. And then we have a mirror inside every company. No credit card, consumer trading, and most, I think it really works. It's part of us. In your mind, you know, how do you deploy it? It's not, I can't tell you, use AI. You have to figure out how you're going to use it. Sit down, think about it, call friends at other companies. So most of them actually work. But I say some are maybe disappointing. There's no example. We spent, you know, $400 million and it was a complete waste of money. You waste of money. There's none of that. And even there was, it was part of just the learnings of getting something done.

So you're recommending to a lot of companies. Do you think it's time to be on time to be investing in it?

Absolutely time to go. You should be using it. It should be when we meet. As for business reviews, every business review at a detailed level, what are you doing in technology? What are you doing in AI? What are the projects? How you improving it? We're sending people to a master class or the management team say, My God, I didn't know it could do that for me. I didn't know it could read 100,000 documents. I didn't know it can correlate this database with that database and tell me patterns that I can't possibly see, which is how we're picking up a lot of fraud. It's pattern recognition, the part of some of the AI machines that you know, human beings can't pick up. So use it. Get good at it. Make it part of your your tool set, your weapon set, and you'll, you'll learn. It'll get better all the time you manage. It'll get better. And you, you should do it, you know, in any in any business.

And did you say you're sending your executives and your team to a master class in AI? Is that, how are you training your teams in it?

We asked, we had a request from our own people. So I said, we have 150,000 people using large language models inside data. And remember, the inside data, private data, is huge, and it's not in the web. And therefore, you know, all the data is being used, right? That's not completely true, and we use data both inside and outside, but a lot of people saying, I want to learn. I want to know how to use it. How do you think about it when I sit there as a management team? So our HR people did a great job. They formed a master class. Some was at headquarters, I think some was MIT. Some were inside people, some outside people. We just had the first one, and I haven't gotten a report back. I always tell people to do something like that. This is great. This is wonderful. I want to know if, six months later, they say it was useful, and so we're going to find out. But I'm sure it had some benefit.

Awesome. Last question on AI. So it's the capex spending on it, especially from tech companies, is tremendous. AI companies, I've read a stat, have accounted for 80% of gains. Of US stocks in 2025 and companies investing hundreds of billions in AI accounts for an estimated 40% of US GDP growth this year. Does that concern you as you look at the markets? What kind of a bubble are we talking about, and also the secular nature of the investments going into these AI companies, AMD into. OpenAI, back into the chips, things like that.

You know, it is, it's 40% of the increase in GDP, which I've got, was 2.5%. So it was a big increase in capex. And remember that capex is roads and cement and steel and servers and connectors. It's a million different things. I'm not, I wouldn't say I'm concerned. And like I said, You can't look at AI as a bubble, though some of these things may be in the bubble. In total, it'll probably pay off. Some of those projects won't get done the way they were announced. You know, someone won't get the power they need and past. And when you look at how they're done, it's, I call it project finance. If you're, if JP Morgan's leasing a building from you, that's a pretty good credit. If you are relying on a company that doesn't have revenues to pay you for your lease, that's not the same thing. Or, you know, who's responsible for finishing the building? Is there insurance on it? What if the machines don't work? What if the chips fail? What if, who's taking all these risks? And so you got to go, literally, project by project, and even on that investment scheme is not abnormal to have vendor finance, which is what you feel about buy part of your company, you get the cash. I'll finish your purchase. You got to go one by one to say, is it pushing the bubble or is it real? Is it, you know, they're really going to develop stuff that'll have productive capability? They'll pay off on the investment. Like I said, in total, I think they probably will, but one by one, I don't know.

So I want to jump ahead to just a little bit of a near-term look at the market to 2026. The Trump administration has done a lot this year, the tariffs. First off, the first thing I want to actually ask you is, on April 2, when the Liberation Day tariffs dropped, what was your day like? Tell me that 24-hour day in the life of Jamie Dimon.

I don't, I do remember it. I remember the market going down, considering them for a couple of days after it. That number caught people by surprise, you know, and, and I think appropriately, the administration backed off of it and assigned people to go country by country, to come up with these agreements in principle, with their agreements in principle. And, you know, the market went, came way. I've got 15% or something like that, and then mostly recovered once, you know, it seemed more rational. And so I think you've seen that pattern exhibit itself. You know, that's how they negotiate, you know, out here, and we'll move here, see how you're moving. What works, what doesn't work, and in some ways, it's good. It's wrong for people to say it's not good to respond to legitimate complaints about what you're doing is a good thing to do, and to make adjustments is appropriate, which they've said they're going to do in India, they've said they're going to do in China. The market went down 1,000 points when the minor trade war happened. So that's the right thing to do. But they're still out there. These are our allies and friends, and we should finish these things and put them in place. I think they're getting better at. They're very complicated. You know, I'm not sure when they started. They completely are complicated. In fact, someone from the, someone from the government, told me that, you know, you need hundreds of people to negotiate one deal. They, you know, I think the whole trade trade department has 104, 50, and there were 100 of these. So, you know, it takes a little bit of time to work through. I assume you're. And the really important thing to me, by the way, we need to keep the Western world together economically. And while there are legitimate trade complaints, both about national security. We made some failures and unfair trade. I hope, at the end of the day, that we are embracing our allies and our non-allies. You know, India is not an ally of ours, but I think we should embrace them. They're a natural ally. All we have to do is reach out our hand. Trade is part of that. But I've also been told that, hopefully that will be resolved soon too.

Well, that gets into the bigger geopolitical reordering that's happening around these tariffs. And yes, they've come down from that April 2 day for the most part, pretty much everywhere. But it is creating ripple effects. Yes, we're getting some nice revenue back into the into the country, but also other countries are turning to each other for help. And if you look at China, I wonder, do you think we've overplayed our hand there a little bit? They corner the market. On rare earth. They have turned to the rest of the world to make up some of the business loss from the US in these trade talks. So what's happening there?

I think it's very complicated. You know, this is a multiplayer, multi-year game. And so initial response is, you're absolutely right. Negotiating a settlement here does not mean you don't trade things going forward. I think you have seen people do that. And there are layers of these things where you can move some business over here, but you can't move it all. You can avoid some tariffs over there. It's complicated. And, you know, with China, it's the most complicated, the biggest trading part of everyone in the world, you know, in the rare earths, yeah, they've kind of cornered it. But the rare earths everywhere, they're not rare. This is the processing, mining, and and dirty, you know, we basically outsource dirty stuff to other countries, is what this was, and we should be able to fix that. So. But they, they've also, you know, when they do something like that, they're also telling the world they're willing to do something like that. And so, you know, this goes a little bit of both ways. You know, I would be in favor of deep engagement with China, where there are legitimate issues, and there are some about how they subsidize industries, and they should be very specific. And then anything about national security, to me, has got nothing to do with China. It's got to do with we need to make sure that things are done here or in friendly places with secure supply chains that we need for national security, our defense, and our safety, and that's a whole different issue, that it should be unilateral. That's not a negotiation.

So stepping back into the strategy of what the Trump administration seems to be doing, in some ways, is they're almost operating the American government like it's a business in need of a turnaround. We have this ballooning deficit, and some things have been helpful in reducing that. Some things are not, like the one big, beautiful bill. But it seems like, if you listen to Howard Letnick speaking, he's talking about things like, well, revenue is coming in from tariffs, and why are we giving handouts to like Harvard grants into Intel? We should be taking equity and getting upside potential for that. That's sort of how a venture capitalist would think. And there, that's not been done before in our government. Is this a good idea or not?

We had a lot in there. Yes, the every topic, I think that government should be pro-business and pro-growth, and I think that's very good. I think the tariffs, we think it's going to collect at a run rate, about $400 billion a year, somewhat offset by the big, beautiful bill that will be more stimulus, and that a lot of that's funded. And I think deregulation, I say smart regulation is a good idea. And everyone knows it is crippling to people. It's redundant. It slows people down. You can't move. It's hard to get licenses. It's hard to get permitting. It affects affordable housing. Of course, the right to be looking at that. And then, of course, when you say business, you know, government isn't business, but, but they should have the same. And I've been right about this for years. You give me your money for schools or whatever I do, I owe you. You gave me this. We said we do this. Here's the outcome, here's the cost per person, here's how many people we covered, here's how many people got jobs. Here's many people, and they don't do that. So to apply certain disciplines to government, absolutely. And until we do it, I would say, I'm going to guess there's not one person in this room, even the most liberal Democrat in the room, who would say the government is well-run and efficient, okay, and they owe you that, and it is part of the reason we have a little bit of this. You know, people think Washington is a swamp because it sucks up money. It's the great sucking sound like. How many of you think if we gave Washington another trillion dollars, that you will be better off, that poor people would be better off, that school? Maybe you're few people believe that, but, but you, you haven't spent much time in what goes on in this town and so and how money, you know, goes to special interest groups and all these various things. So, you know, they already collect 20% of everyone's profits. So you know, they already have the kind of an owner of our companies. You look at, I think they have to be very careful about individual deals with individual logic. And I don't know all the deals, so I don't know all the things that took place. We know some of these companies were involved in some, so I can't answer specific questions, but you got to be very careful about why, what, when, where, what kind of press is this at? You know, is it national security? Is it fairness? You know, I thought they did a very good deal with MP Materials. You know, we were the banker on that, but they, they signed a long-term contract, which these companies need to survive. They bought a piece of the company. They probably tripled their money. Ready? I think that is a reasonable thing to do, but it's national security. It's not me and Intel's national security, because I do think advanced chips are, but whether that was the way to do it, I'd have to leave that to people know exactly what's in the deal, and remember, whatever you think of it, if Democrats do it, I that terrifies me. That's those golden shares owned by Democrats. They'll be dictating to us every social value system they believe. And that'll be that will look like Europe put it in 10 years.

So last, maybe last political one. There's a New York City Mayor race happening. What are your thoughts on Adams probably becoming the mayor?

Oh, you know, I have to deal with the world I got, you know, not the world I want. And if he becomes mayor, so be it. You know, what really? What does he really think? You know, he was part of that socialist democratic thing, which literally is more Marxist than socialist. Who read it, but I don't know what he believes. If that's I don't want to assign all that to him. He's talking a lot of people. He's convinced a lot of people. He's willing to change. He wants to learn. I don't know if that's right, you know, some people are what they are. They're not going to change. And the rest of that's just typical deception. Or he may change. The other thing, which, you know, I would tell him, if you're right here, I've seen lots of mayors. A lot of these folks have never run something. I. All of a sudden they are running a huge bureaucracy, police, sanitation, fire, schools, and potholes, crime, and that's what the people want. They're not, they don't. A good mayor gets that job. They realize I got to deliver those things. Those things are not Democrat or Republican, and they should be measured and tracked. You have meetings and good people. And a lot of some mayors and governors getting the job never managed, and they grow into it. They get good people. They're organized. They get other people to be organized. And some they're a complete mess of the whole time they're there running now, you know, having 84 different advisors, you know, responding to the last person in the room and all that kind of stuff, and we don't know, you know, and I would hope for the best of this case. And, you know, New York will survive. You know, we survived the de Blasio. New York is resilient. It is true. But it is odd, you know, to have the bastion of American capitalism, you know, with a socialist in that job.

Yeah. Well, what does that say about capitalism and what needs?

I'll tell you one of the things. It says, Well, no, capitalism has a lot to fix. You know, like, I'm not, like everything works, you know, funded. We've never had free markets. Like, totally free. You need properly regulated, you know, systems and disclosures. And, you know, a lot of those regulators do a good job. That doesn't mean they didn't overdo some of them. But, they take New York City and this, this is wrong. I'm about to say. JP Morgan, me personally cannot get involved in local politics because we have pay-to-play rules, and multiple rules, by the way, but they're SEC rules, you know, if we, if we do business with the government, which, of course we do. But who could get involved? Every union, lawyers, real estate, everybody. They took the main players New York off the field. And I've asked my general counsel, who's superb, by the way, and she's brilliant. I asked her all the time, like, doesn't that violate my First Amendment rights? And she says, Yes, it does, but and it's wrong, and I just there's something wrong with that. There's something I can't speak up and I can't fight what I believe in New York City because we do business with the government, which the lawyers do, the real estate do, the unions do, it's we do have. There's something wrong with our system that we that we that's how we fight these political battles and gerrymandering, which, you know, maybe everyone uses it. You got to do the other guy's doing it. It's a sick system, and it's why we all question government, you know. And if you're gonna make it a fight, make it a fair fight. All right, you want to switch topics, I'll let you off. But by the way, if he becomes mayor, I will call him and offer my help. Doesn't mean I agree with him. It may be the ask for help in a way. I refuse to do it, but maybe he's actually looking for help and things we can do, and we can help the kids in our schools that are crime in the streets or something like that, or capital. We will help them. You know, I am a patriot. I help governors, mayors, presidents. We help people around the world. A lot of you think, how can you possibly doing business in that country? We're there for the country and the people of the country, not necessarily the Prime Minister, the President, and we're there forever. We're not there for, you know, one thing. So I look a little better. There's more like real politic. Get involved and grow up. That's the world we got. Love it. That is great leadership. Thank you. I think we need more of that.

Speaking of leadership, you have been at the helm of JP Morgan for quite a long time, about two decades, and that far exceeds the amount of time that most CEOs get to stay in the job, seven years, I think, is the average for a man running a Fortune 500 and about five for a woman running a Fortune 500. What's the secret to longevity in the role, other than obviously performing incredibly well as you have?

Well, first of all, I love what I do, you know, so I enjoy it, and I like our people, and so like when I, I need my rest, I may get tired sometimes. I always tell people management is a lot of fun, except for two things: people, customers, and employees. And but I do enjoy it. I find and I, it's got purpose for me. I make our cities a better place, our clients a better place. We create opportunities for employees. We do great philanthropic work. We bank the cities, schools, states, hospitals. We're the biggest small business lender. We operate 100 countries. I've met more presidents, prime ministers. That's all fascinating. And but my point is, you got to like it. You got to, and you got to do the job. I mean, you can't retire in place, you know, when I, you don't have Tom Brady go out in the field and say, you know, I've been doing this a long time. I'm kind of tired, so I'm gonna sit out this game. No, no, the those guys is every every practice. They give it their all. That's kind of every day, every meeting. You know, I go to a lot. I'm gonna tell you, this is a little management lesson. When I go to a meeting, I've done the pre-reads, and you get 100% of my attention, 100%, you know, none of this nodding off, none of this reading my mail. You know, if you have an iPad in front of me and it looks like you're reading your email or getting notifications, I tell you to close the damn thing. It's disrespectful. And so I, when I can't do that, I should move on. And so some of these CEOs, if you look at it, some weren't good. It took a while for the board to figure it out, or took an activist to figure out. Some were good and didn't like the job. I mean, I know people said I don't want to do this anymore, you know, it is a burden to bear for for many and such, and work hard, you know?

Oh, the other thing, which I think is really important. It's a life. There's a humility about learning. I mean, every day. I mean, I, if I need to know something, I have to call you up to find out. I'm not an expert in everything that takes place in the company. And so, you know, sometimes people write about, he's a micromanager. He does call maybe more than some other people. But always learning. Things are always changing. I'm always worried, you know. And if you, if you get Eric and I did a YouTube master class on this, if you get arrogant, complacency, lack of curiosity, you'll kill the company. That's the petri dish for politics, which is stasis and death. And I really do mean that. If you look at matter of fact, you got, you should write an article. Tell me, years ago, Fortune did this thing about that. I think they went back to 1910, so you had the Fortune 500 whenever you started keeping that, how many people fell out over time? You did it recently with just the top 10 or something like that. The churn is enormous, and the failures are very high. And if you look at the failures, and library failed, they were sold out. They sold out because they were failing, not because it was they were leaders. Sometimes think of Nokia's handset, BlackBerry, Digital Equipment, Sears, you know, AMP. And it's a lesson in these companies. The root cause was arrogance, complacency, denial, politics, all that stuff, instead of analyzing your business and saying, here's what we're good at. So even when I do anything, it's the good, the bad, the ugly. I'm not interested in you spinning me. And I don't spin my shareholders. You've never heard me be on an analyst call spin. Oh, we're great at this. I'm more like, we actually, we shouldn't have done that. We failed to do this, and we failed to build Stripe. We could have. I'm not embarrassed about it. It's just a fact, and I think people should acknowledge it in my own company, so that we, you know, so we don't miss the next one, maybe. And we're going to miss some. You can't, you know, we hit a home run every time you're at bat. But, uh, but those are the basics, you know, keep working. Stay humble. Work hard. Take I talk about road trips. People say, Oh, you're going to show the flag. I don't do road trips to show the flag. You go to every office all around. I go around the world by plane, but we take a bus trip every year in jeans and polo shirts. We see branches and small business and call centers. I'm with my management team. We've had some press on the thing, having watching us in action on the bus. We have tellers and loan officers, and we give them beer and immunity. Beer and immunity. Great management. And then we, we fix it. Yeah, you know, I, if you went to you, I can go to any assistant at any teller right now. Have a one-on-one conversation. I walk away with three notes of things we got to fix, you know. And I want my management team to do it so that about me doing it, I also get to watch them, if they're able to do it. Some, aren't they just don't like being lectured to by, you know, subordinates about what they're doing wrong, you know. And the Army has this great thing called the after-action report, even when they're just practicing, what happened? How did it happen? And it's not officers telling enlisted, it's the enlisted and the officers talking together. You gave me an order to go down this rope to do 10 AM, but the stuff wasn't in place when I got there, and so it's that open conversation that makes you a better company.

Well, Jamie, I promised the people they could have their questions. So let's turn to the audience for questions. I think right here in the front we've got Tammy and Betsy Bay. Okay, so first of all, your new building is extraordinary. I can't believe we didn't ask about it, but that's not my question. So I'm Tammy Rosen from Pagaya Technologies. So my question is this, the country really wants to be the winner at AI, right? We want to be able to win this race. But how can we do that when our immigration policies are now going to constrict us from getting the best talent, and our schools are not going to be able to take in those foreign students? And if you look at Silicon Valley, more than a majority of those founders are immigrants. So how can you, JP Morgan, your role, kind of think about what we do in this space, because it's a real problem if you don't have the best talent.

Yeah, so I agree with you. We should. We are the bright city on the hill that still attracts the best and the brightest. We should do that. I was with the president once where he said, after I get border control, which he has, it's amazing how quickly we got. To give him credit for that, but he said, I would stamp a green card onto everyone who had a degree and advanced degree here. I still believe that and a path to citizenship for DACA. DACA stays a path to citizenship. Seasonal. I hope one day we got to real immigration reform. If you're talking about H1Bs, you know, how many H1B visas there are in the country today? 600,000 and 160 million people work. So I find it hard to believe that that is going to change, whether you win an AI or not. So I do think, and there were legitimate complaints by H1Bs. I always look at all the details when these things come up about, you know, some people using it just for have cheaper staff to make more profit on consulting things and and people. Some people will pay the price to bring in the talent they need. So I think people will sort it out somehow. It won't be devastating. And then the other one you mentioned is foreign students. So we're in favor of foreign students. I think they should allow that. I think the university said it there. They pay full boat for the most part, and they still hear it's just, it's just, there's talk in Congress about less the amount of Chinese foreign students, or something like that. I don't know what's going to happen there.

Awesome hands. Hi. Betsy Ba Herman, Head of Research at Phillips. I have a European question. You have warned that Europe is losing its competitive edge, and I'm just wondering, what advice do you have for European-based companies, and how could they get some of that competitive edge back?

Yeah, so I love Europe, and I think the goal of our policy should be both militarily. I think there are legitimate complaints about NATO, but I think to make NATO and the Allies stronger. And so that should be going. Goal two should be the economic side, which, you know, writ large, is investments. It's how we treat each other, it's tariffs, it's other trade issues, it's strategic communication. You know, do we? Do we tell people why these systems work better than those systems, etc.? Europe. And so Europe does a lot of things well. So there's not a total criticism. It's GDP per person has gone from 90% of America to like 65%, and that is on the road to 60%, 55%. And at one point that's not quite sustainable. And so my view, and the Draghi wrote a report. There are 300 recommendations there. I would take all of them, that is how you fix it. And so maybe more efficient and effective social nets. Some countries have very good ones. They're costly, but they work really well. Other ones have ones that don't work really well. There's bad policies. They're all over the place around hiring and training, and you have the same regulations. You need a common market. Like one of the big advantages for JP Morgan is we have a huge home market, you know, and there they have fragmented markets. And it's not just banking. It's true for telecom. It's true for some of your equipment you make. It's true for. So create a real common market. It was a huge accomplishment to have the European Union. They went about halfway there, and they kind of stopped, and then they people got very upset, somewhat legitimately, because Brussels was this bureaucratic power that was imposing upon countries certain things they didn't like, ie, which led to Brexit. Whether you, I don't think there's a good thing to do, but we got to recognize that, you know what? What does the European Union do and what's left to the states? And they shouldn't be lecturing you about all your different policies every different country. So capital markets, union, pro-business, pro-growth, permitting, regulation, deregulation, not worse regulation, smart regulation, that reduces the extraordinary burden that has there and drive innovation. They have, by the way, one piece of good news. They recognize it. So I look at Macron, Merz, Starmer, Maloney, they all know it. They're all talking about it. I think they all mean it. They're talking to each other, you know, both about strengthening NATO and about strengthening the economy. It's going to be hard. And I think we all need to put some elbow grease through why these. We also have to tell people pro-growth policies. They may be good for big business and business, they are very good for the citizens of our country. And we've, we've missed teaching people that lesson. And then we should also acknowledge, like in the United States of America, the bottom 20% have been left behind. Their incomes, you know, haven't gone up for 25 years. You know, they're dying seven years younger. Their schools suck. They go back to crime-ridden neighborhoods, and then they get lectured to by the elite, and when they see some of the things government does, like EV credits, which may make you all feel good, they don't benefit from EV credits. Defunding the police hurt them. Their schools aren't good. So most you, your kids, go to schools. You don't even worry about it. You don't worry when you go home. And we did that. That was Democratic and Republican policies for the last 30 or 40 years did not have the outcomes we wanted, and we should recognize that, and then ask why. I always remind myself, you don't recognize a problem, you cannot fix it. So Europe and America, it's a similar list. I've written about it, and we're going to get more involved in lobbying for good policy for Europe, because I think it's that important to the Western.

world. In the red chair. Thank you very much. Debra de Sanzo, Best Buy.

So another thing we need to be successful in AI is data centers that take clean water and electricity, water and electricity. We're run by the city and states that don't have capital. What can be done? You know, the cap the markets are going to fix that. You know, people are building plants in different places. They're finding ways to reduce water. Need a lot of these plants. You know, they're building their own gas plants right there. They're drilling right there, and they're putting these big data says right next to that gas plant, which gives continuous energy. There, some of these things will take place. There will be this conflict that there would be that, you know, what is for consumer power? What's for wholesale power of these data centers, is it raising the price? There'll be a lot of issues like that, which I hope are quickly sorted through so we can build some of these data centers and also serve our clients.

Gas prices are down, power electricity prices are up, and they're going to continue going up. And one of the ways to fix it is to fix permitting. That is make it much harder, much costlier for almost all these projects being built. That's true for solar and wind. And you know, they like look at these things. It takes so long to get when you put a billion dollars in the ground, if the payoff is in 10 years and not four, how do you feel? You know. And it's also true for pipelines that bring clean gas into New York, you know, for wires that bring clean energy from Canada into Massachusetts can't get built because Maine and New Hampshire said you can't put the power lines there, and we're crippling ourselves. I mean, it's, I give you a million examples, and it's kind of sad over here.

Hi Heather white, Chief Legal Officer, Jim pack, I have more of a comment than a question, because I don't think you're going to answer what I want to ask, but I listen to you on acquired recently. You had a did a podcast that was great. I think there's a lot of women in this room who would love you to run for office. Well, at 69 you'd be young. I'm aging nicely. It's that job, you know. So I think I'm a little too young for the big one. Maybe you could answer in a yes or no, but see, running at some point in your life I do not and I love what I do, and so I'd have to give up something I do for somebody which would be at the best quixotic, okay, and, and I think from this perch, I do everything I can to help my country. Just announced that strategic resiliency initiative, you know, a trillion and a half dollars. You know, we help veterans. We help we reach out to all LMI, lower income communities. We've, we've hired 15,000 vets. We help schools, cities, states, Detroit, you know, we get involved in public policy in Europe and parts of Asia. We get involved. I'm gonna meet the development finance banks while I'm here. The IMF is this week. So we do all of those things to make it a better world. And I think that's the best I can do, and it makes me feel very good doing just that.

Well, Jamie, it has been a pleasure to have you here with us today. Well, you didn't ask me about journalism. Well, oh, are you gonna buy fortune? At some point, that's on the list, right? I wanted to buy fortune, and my board wouldn't let me just so you know, and they were right, and plus, it might have tainted, you know, I would never got involved in editorial stuff. It is absolutely critical. One of the things I'm doing tonight is I have salon dinners with press all the time now, just to talk about these issues so they know they can ask, we're open. We get other CEOs to do it, to educate them, because they educate the the influencers, those influencers, senators, congressmen, staff, you know, governors, mayors, and over time, it works, and I think it could lead to better public policy. It's got to be done the right way. But it's journalism does that they educate the world, and they should, you know, sometimes they're too I mean, I think some are so biased, it's hard to listen to many more but, but I always say, just we keep on doing it, put elbow grease in it. And I, you know, I'm I would, if I bought fortune, I would spend a lot more money on the reporter side. The best reports, I think, detailed things and strategies, successful women, failures, countries, things that work and things that don't work, and more of that more. I love deep content. I mean, there's nothing like it. I read a tremendous amount every day, and you're always looking for those deep insights, which usually come from what you read. I read five papers in the morning. I read things like grants, industry, observe, the economist of the best, of course. I read fortune, gloom, Doom and boom report. Lot of a lot of eclectic stuff and anything sends me that's, that's how the world is going to stay smart so important, we're the fourth estate that we uphold democracy. So I appreciate that you understand that and that you support it. Jamie, thank you so much for your invitation. Your time, folks. Thank you.