This ranking evaluates how Fortune 500 companies are deploying AI, and how technology leaders value those investments relative to industry peers.

Fortune AIQ 75

The companies on the Global 500 employ 70.2 million people, and their revenue represents more than one-third of the world’s GDP.

Fortune Global 500

With a combined revenue of $21 trillion and $2.1 trillion in profits, the 2026 Fortune 500 is the definitive list of America's largest companies.

Fortune 500

The 300 companies on this year’s list brought in over $12.5 trillion in revenue for the latest 12 months, with the median revenue figure at $24 billion.

America's Most Innovative Companies

AI is a major force shaping this year’s list—but it’s far from the only story.

World's Most Admired Companies

Fortune AIQ 50

The corporations on our annual list of the world's 500 largest companies combined to generate $41.7 trillion in revenue over the past year.

Almost $20 trillion in revenue—and a record-breaking $1.87 trillion in profits. Introducing the 2025 Fortune 500, the definitive list of the biggest companies in America.

The 300 companies on this year’s list brought in over $12.6 trillion in revenue for the latest 12 months, with the median revenue figure at $22 billion.

Leaders in all industries rely more than ever on Big Tech—and appreciate the giants that deliver, at scale, without drama.

The corporations on our annual list posted aggregate revenues of $41 trillion for the second year in a row.

Industries included in the sector are banks, insurance, and real estate companies.

Fortune Sector Leaders: Financials

The Fortune 500, in its 70th year in 2024, ranks the biggest U.S. companies by revenue.

The 200 companies on this list are transforming industries from the inside out.

The 26th edition of the list shows how much esteem Big Tech giants command among other business leaders.

WMA 2024-JPMorgan Chase

The 25th Fortune World’s Most Admired Companies list suggests that tech giants’ peers respect them as much as ever.

WMAC 2023-JPMorgan Chase

The corporations on our annual list of the world’s largest companies delivered a record $41 trillion in aggregate revenues.

G500-2023-JPMorgan Chase

The companies on this list are mobilizing the creative tools of capitalism to help solve social problems.

CTW 2023-

In the summer of 2013, Detroit hit economic rock-bottom. With the city’s population down more than 60% from its 1950s peak, and the auto industry still reeling from the Great Recession, the city declared bankruptcy; its unemployment rate at one point topped 25%. To help the city bounce back, JPMorgan Chase teamed up with local government, other employers, and nonprofits on Invested in Detroit, a program through which the company has poured over $200 million into Detroit’s economy in the form of job training, loans for small businesses, and real estate financing. The bank’s biggest innovations involved extending credit to entrepreneurs and property buyers who lacked the collateral or credit histories to qualify for traditional loans—a major problem in underserved and lower-income communities. To date, Invested in Detroit has helped place some 72,000 Detroiters into apprenticeships or jobs, while providing financing or technical aid to 13,000 small businesses. Detroit’s jobless rate is now just 6.4%. JPMorgan Chase, meanwhile, has benefited from a healthier economy: Since 2017, its numbers of consumer and business accounts, market share, and commercial lending in the metro area have all grown by double-digit percentages. And the bank has taken some of its innovations national: Its Entrepreneurs of Color Fund, first launched in Detroit, has made more than 2,100 loans, worth over $115 million, to entrepreneurs nationwide.

Change the World

The Fortune 500, in its 69th year in 2023, ranks the biggest U.S. companies by revenue.

F500 2023-JPMorgan Chase

The largest bank in the U.S. got even bigger in early 2023 after acquiring failed lender First Republic. It reported record revenues of $154.8 billion for 2022, up 22% from the year prior. 
<ul> 
 	<li>JPMorgan Chase acquired the $173 billion loan portfolio and $30 billion of securities held by First Republic in May 2023, after First Republic was seized by the federal government amid broader turmoil in the banking sector that started in March when Silicon Valley Bank experienced a run on its deposits.</li> 
 	<li>The bank posted $37.7 billion in profits for 2022. That was down 22% from the year prior, but still made JPMorgan Chase the most profitable commercial bank or financial services company on the Fortune 500.</li> 
</ul>

Just as it dominates our economy, Big Tech now dominates Fortune’s annual ranking of corporate reputation.

WMAC-2022-10-JPMorgan Chase

Aggregate sales hit $37.8 trillion last year—an increase of 19%, the highest annual growth rate in the list’s history.

This year’s Fortune 500 marks the 68th running of the list.

F500 2022 JPMorganChase

A Wall Street boom fueled record profits for JPMorgan Chase in 2021: The company delivered $48.3 billion in earnings for the year, as fees from mergers and acquisitions and trading revenue swelled the bank’s margins. That said, the megabank’s leadership has signaled that the party could be winding down. CEO Jamie Dimon said in April 2022 that the global economy was facing “unprecedented” risks, warning that factors such as the war in Ukraine and high inflation could possibly lead to recession. In February 2022, JPMorgan Chase became the first commercial bank to enter the metaverse, setting up a virtual shop in the Metajuku mall. In the real-world workplace, the bank has been less bullish about virtual interaction, with Dimon urging reluctant employees to return full-time to the office.

After a year in which humanity leaned more heavily than ever on tech giants, see which companies topped Fortune's ranking of corporate reputation.

WMAC 2021-08-JPMorgan Chase

Total revenue for the world’s biggest companies fell 4.8% to $31.7 trillion this year—the first decline in half a decade.

G500-2021-43-JPMorgan Chase

As COVID-19 began its global spread, CEO Jamie Dimon publicly worried there would be another great financial crisis. But despite the financial challenges faced by many Americans, the nation’s largest bank remained largely unfazed. In 2020, JPMorgan Chase posted record net revenues of $119.5 billion, though profits sank 20% from the year prior, owing in part to billions set aside to cover bad loans. One bright spot was JPMorgan’s markets revenues, which came in at a record $29.5 billion in 2020 as traders capitalized on volatile swings in the prices of stocks and other assets. Fees from the firm’s investment banking activities, meanwhile, rose 25%. In 2021, Dimon is singing quite a different tune to shareholders: He has predicted a “boom” that could “easily run into 2023.” Indeed, the firm has started to release some of those loan loss reserves it built up in 2020—a vote of confidence that the recovery has truly taken hold.

This year’s Fortune 500 marks the 67th running of the list.

F500-2021-19-JPMorgan Chase

For an astounding 13th straight year, Apple claims the top spot in Fortune’s annual ranking of corporate reputation, based on a survey of almost 3,800 executives, directors, and analysts.

This year's Fortune Global 500 generated $33.3 trillion in revenues and $2.1 trillion in profits.

G500-2020-038-JPMorgan

As the U.S. plunged into a pandemic-related recession this year, the nation’s largest bank was armed with an exceptionally strong balance sheet. JPMorgan Chase moved up three spots in the rankings from last year, thanks to a 6% increase in net revenue to a record $118.7 billion, with $2.7 trillion in assets. The company posted $36.4 billion in net income—its ninth record result in the past 10 years. However, the outlook for 2020 is less bullish thanks to the coronavirus crisis. CEO Jamie Dimon issued a warning to shareholders: Best-case scenario, he predicted, the pandemic will create “financial stress similar to the global financial crisis of 2008,” including a “meaningful” hit to profits.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 66th running of the list.

F500-2020-017-JPMorgan-Chase

Heading into a recession in 2020, the nation’s largest bank is armed with a strong balance sheet. JPMorgan Chase moved up one spot from last year, thanks to a 6% increase in net revenue to a record $118.7 billion, with $2.7 trillion in assets. The company posted $36.4 billion in net income—the ninth record result in the past 10 years. However, this year looks different. Since the coronavirus crisis began, CEO Jamie Dimon issued a warning to shareholders: Best-case scenario, he predicted, the pandemic will create “financial stress similar to the global financial crisis of 2008,” including a “meaningful” hit to profits.

Here are the World's Most Admired Companies for 2019 as ranked in their industries. See who made the list.

This year's Fortune Global 500 generated $27.7 trillion in revenues and $1.5 trillion in profits.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 65th running of the list.

These 52 companies from across the globe are doing well by doing good.

Here are the World's Most Admired Companies for 2018 as ranked in their industries. See who made the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 64th running of the list.

Here’s our look at 57 companies that do well by doing good.

Here are the World's Most Admired Companies for 2017 as ranked in their industries. See who made the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 63rd running of the list.

Here’s our look at 50 companies that do well by doing good.

Here are the World's Most Admired Companies for 2016 as ranked in their industries. See who made the list.

This year's Fortune Global 500 generated $27.6 trillion in revenues and $1.5 trillion in profits.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 62nd running of the list.

Business insiders have spoken: Asked which companies they most admire, more than 4,100 executives, directors, and analysts chose these top 50 All-Stars.

The world's 500 largest companies generated $31.2 trillion in revenues and $1.7 trillion in profits in 2014. Together, this year's Fortune Global 500 employ 65 million people worldwide and are represented by 36 countries.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 61st running of the list. Wal-Mart claims the top spot again. See who made the list.

Global business is back. After limping through a worldwide financial crisis and economic slowdown, the 500 largest companies ranked by revenues shattered all sorts of performance records in 2013: They racked up combined revenues of $31.1 trillion, up 2.5% from 2012, and profits soared 27% to nearly $2 trillion. China’s 95 companies (up from 89 last year) posted $5.8 trillion in revenues. The U.S. has four fewer companies on the list than last year but remains (for now) the country leader, with 128 corporations on the list—including No. 1 Wal-Mart Stores—reporting $8.6 trillion in revenues. 

Wal-Mart stayed on top as its sales crept closer to half-a-trillion dollars. Apple moved into the top five. And UnitedHealth Group continued its steady climb. 

Change The World

Impact Segment

Sector

Industry

Current All-Star Rank

Previous All-Star Rank

Industry Rank

Previous Industry Rank

Overall Score

Innovation

People Management

Use of Corporate Assets

Social Responsibility

Quality of Management

Financial Soundness

Long-Term Investment Value

Quality of Products/Services

Global Competitiveness

Strongest Dimension

Years on list

Previous rank

State

Key Financials (last Fiscal Year)

Revenues ($M)

Profits ($M)

Assets ($M)

Total Stockholder Equity ($M)

Profit Ratios

Profit as % of Revenues

Profits as % of Assets

Profits as % of Stockholder Equity

Earnings Per Share (last Fiscal Year)

Earnings Per Share ($)

EPS % Change (from prior fiscal year)

EPS % Change (5 year annual rate)

EPS % Change (10 year annual rate)

Total Return

Total Return to Investors (last year)

Total Return to Investors (5 year, annualized)

Total Return to Investors (10 year, annualized)

JPMorgan Chase &amp; Co. is the largest of the United States’ “Big Four” banks and a global financial-services company headquartered in New York City. Its principal businesses include Consumer &amp; Community Banking; Commercial &amp; Investment Banking; and Asset &amp; Wealth Management, alongside corporate functions. The present company was created through the 2000 merger of J.P. Morgan &amp; Co. and Chase Manhattan Corporation, and it also reflects the histories of firms including Bank One, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover, and Washington Mutual. Jamie Dimon has served as chairman and CEO since 2006, leading the bank through the 2008 global financial crisis; in 2026, Doug Petno and Troy Rohrbaugh were named co-presidents as the bank continues its CEO-succession planning.

Q2 2026

Q1 2026

Q4 2025

Q2 2025

Q1 2025

Q4 2024

JPMorgan Chase (JPM): Company Profile, Stock Price, News, Rankings

legacy

JPMorgan Chase

jpmorgan chase

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to JPMorgan Chase's First Quarter twenty twenty five Earnings Call. This call is being recorded. Your line will be muted for the duration of the call. We will now go live to the presentation.

The presentation is available on JPMorgan Chase's website. Please refer to the disclaimer in the back concerning forward looking statements. Please stand by. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to JPMorgan Chase's Chairman and CEO, Jamie Dimon and the Chief Financial Officer, Jeremy Barnum. Mr.

Thank you, and good morning, everyone. Starting on page one, the firm reported net income of $14,600,000,000 EPS of $5.07 on revenue of $46,000,000,000 with an ROTCE of 21%. These results included a First Republic related gain of $588,000,000 which was previously disclosed in the 10 ks. On page two, we have more on our first quarter results. The firm reported revenue of $46,000,000,000 up $3,500,000,000 or 8% year on year.

NII ex markets was down $430,000,000 or 2%, driven by the impact of lower rates and deposit margin compression, as well as lower deposit balances in CCB. This was predominantly offset by higher card revolving balances, the impact of securities activity including from prior quarters, as well as higher wholesale deposits. NIR ex markets was up $2,200,000,000 or 20%, and excluding the significant item I just mentioned, was up 14%, largely on higher asset management fees, lower net investment securities losses, and higher investment banking fees. And Markets revenue was up $1,700,000,000 or 21%. Expenses of $23,600,000,000 were up $840,000,000 or 4%, largely driven by compensation, including growth in employees across the front office and technology, higher brokerage and distribution fees, as well as marketing and legal expense.

The quarter also reflected a $323,000,000 release of the FDIC Special Assessment accrual compared with a $725,000,000 increase in the prior quarter. Credit costs were $3,300,000,000 with net charge offs of $2,300,000,000 and a net reserve build of $973,000,000 We have more details on the reserve build on page three. With this quarter's reserve build, firms' total allowance for credit losses is $27,600,000,000 Let's take a second to add a little bit of context to our thinking surrounding this number in light of the unique environment of the last several weeks. Our first quarter allowance is anchored on the relatively benign central case economic outlook, which was in effect at the end of the quarter. But in light of the significantly elevated risks and uncertainties at the time, we increased the probability weightings associated with the downside scenarios in our CECL framework.

As a result, the weighted average unemployment rate embedded in our allowance is 5.8%, up from 5.5% last quarter, driving the $973,000,000 increase in the allowance. So with that in mind, the consumer build of four forty one million dollars was driven by changes in the weighted average macroeconomic outlook. The wholesale build of $549,000,000 was predominantly driven by credit quality changes on certain exposures and net lending activity, as well as changes in the outlook. In addition, it is important to note that the increase in the allowance is not, to any meaningful degree, driven by deterioration in the actual credit performance in the portfolio, which remains largely in line with expectations. With that, let's go to balance sheet and capital on page four.

We ended the quarter with a CET1 ratio of 15.4%, down 30 basis points versus the prior quarter, as net income and OCI gains were more than offset by capital distributions and higher RWA. This quarter, the firm distributed $11,000,000,000 of capital to shareholders, which reflects $7,100,000,000 of net common share repurchases and the payment of our common dividend, which has been increased to $1.4 per share. This quarter's higher RWA is primarily driven by overall business growth in Markets and some seasonal effects. Now let's go to our businesses, starting with CCB on page five. Consumers and small businesses remain financially healthy.

Despite the recent downtrends in consumer and small business sentiment based on our data, spend, cash buffers, payment to income ratios, and credit utilization are all in line with our expectations. Moving to the financial results, CCB reported net income of $4,400,000,000 on revenue of $18,300,000,000 which was up 4% year on year. In banking and wealth management, revenue was down 1% year on year, driven by lower deposit NII, predominantly offset by growth in wealth management revenue. Average deposits were down 2% year on year and flat sequentially, while end of period deposits were up 2% quarter on quarter. Client investment assets were up 7% year on year, predominantly driven by market performance, and we continue to see strong flows into managed products.

In home lending, revenue was up 2% year on year, and originations were up 42% year on year, off a small base in a slowly growing market. Turning to card services and auto, revenue was up 12% year on year, predominantly driven by card NII on higher revolving balances, as well as higher operating lease income in auto. Card outstandings were up 10% due to strong account acquisition. And in auto, originations were $10,700,000,000 up 20%, driven by higher lease volume. Expenses of $9,900,000,000 were up 6% year on year, predominantly driven by growth in marketing and technology, higher field compensation, as well as higher auto lease depreciation.

Credit costs were $2,600,000,000 reflecting net charge offs of 2,200,000,000.0 up $275,000,000 year on year, predominantly driven by the seasoning of recent vintages in card, with delinquencies and losses in line with expectations. The net reserve build was $475,000,000 of which $400,000,000 was in card. Next, the Commercial and Investment Bank on page six. CIB reported net income of $6,900,000,000 on revenue of $19,700,000,000 which is up 12% year on year. IV fees were up 12% year on year, and we ranked number one with wallet share of 9%.

In advisory, fees were up 16%, benefiting from the closing of deals announced in 2024. Net underwriting fees were up 16%, primarily driven by elevated refinancing activity, particularly in leveraged finance. And equity underwriting fees were down 9% year on year, reflecting challenging market conditions. In light of market conditions, we are adopting a cautious stance on the investment banking outlook. While client engagement and dialogue is quite elevated, both the conversion of the existing pipeline and origination of new activity will require a reduction in the current levels of uncertainty.

Payments revenue was up 3% year on year excluding equity investments, driven by higher deposit balances and fee growth, predominantly offset by deposit margin compression. Lending revenue was up 11% year on year, driven by lower losses on hedges, partially offset by lower balances. Moving to markets, total revenue was up 21% year on year, reflecting record performance in equities. Fixed Income was up 8%, with better performance in rates and commodities against a relatively weak prior year quarter. Equities was up 48%, as the business performed well during a period of elevated volatility, supported by higher client activity and strong monetization of flows, particularly in derivatives.

Securities services revenue was up 7% year on year, driven by fee growth and higher deposit balances, partially offset by deposit margin compression. Expenses of $9,800,000,000 were up 13% year on year, predominantly driven by higher compensation, legal and brokerage expense. Average banking and payments loans were down 3% year on year, and down 1% sequentially, as we continue to observe payoff activity and limited demand for new loans across client segments. Average client deposits were up 11% year on year and up 2% sequentially, reflecting increased activity across payments and security services. Finally, credit costs were $7.00 $5,000,000 largely driven by the net reserve build.

Then, to complete our lines of business, asset and wealth management on page seven. AWM reported net income of £1,600,000,000 with pretax margin of 35%. Revenue of 5,700,000,000 was up 12% year on year, predominantly driven by growth in management fees on strong net inflows and higher average market levels, as well as higher brokerage activity and higher deposit balances. Expenses of $3,700,000,000 were up 7% year on year, largely driven by higher compensation, including revenue related compensation, and continued growth in our private banking advisor teams, as well as higher distribution fees. Long term net inflows were $54,000,000,000 for the quarter, primarily driven by equity and fixed income.

In liquidity, we saw net inflows of £36,000,000,000 AUM of £4,100,000,000,000 and client assets of £6,000,000,000,000 were both up 15% year on year, driven by continued net inflows and higher market levels. And finally, loans were up 5% year on year and flat quarter on quarter, and deposits were up 7% year on year and down 2% sequentially. Turning to Corporate on page eight. Corporate reported net income of $1,700,000,000 Revenue of $2,300,000,000 was up $102,000,000 year on year. NII of $1,700,000,000 was down $826,000,000 year on year.

NIR was a net gain of $653,000,000 compared with a net loss of $275,000,000 in the prior year. Current quarter included the significant item I mentioned upfront, while the prior year quarter included net securities losses of $336,000,000 Expenses of $185,000,000 were down $1,100,000,000 year on year, driven by the changes to the FDIC special assessment accruals I mentioned upfront. To finish up, let's turn to the full year outlook on page nine. We continue to expect NII ex markets to be approximately $90,000,000,000 The firm wide NII outlook has increased to about 94,500,000,000.0 reflecting an increase in markets NII, which you should think of as being primarily offset in NIR. Our adjusted expense outlook continues to be about $95,000,000,000 And on credit, we expect card net charge off rate to be in line with our previous guidance of approximately 3.6%.

So to wrap up, we're pleased with another quarter of strong operating performance, but of course, the focus right now is on the future, which is obviously unusually uncertain. But no matter what outcomes eventually materialize, we are eager to do our part to continue to support our clients, the markets, and the broader economy, and we believe the banking system will be a source of strength in this dynamic environment. And with that, let's open the line for Q and A.

Thank you. Please stand by. Our first question comes from Ken Usdin with Autonomous. You may proceed.

Good morning, Jeremy. I'm wondering if you could start by just kind of amplifying just the macro commentary that you started off on. And given the uncertainty in the world that you referenced, just how are you seeing the activity change across the customer base from consumers to wholesale? And can you just talk through how that's also just informing any changes in your some of your growth and reserving expectations? Thanks.

Sure, Ken. So at a high level, I would say that obviously some of the salient news flow is quite recent. We've done some soundings and some checking both on the consumer side and on the wholesale side. I think on the consumer side, the thing to check is the spending data, and to be honest, the main thing that we see there is what would appear to be a certain amount of front loading of spending ahead of people expecting price increases from tariffs. So ironically, that's actually somewhat supportive, all else equal, but I think what it sort of highlights is that during this transitional period and this elevated uncertainty, you might see some distortions in the data that make it hard to draw larger conclusions.

In terms of our corporate clients, obviously they've been reacting to the changes in tariff policy, and at the margin that shifts their focus away from more strategic priorities with obvious implications for the investment banking pipeline outlook towards more short term work optimizing supply chains and trying to figure out how they're going to respond to the current environment. So as a result, I think we would characterize what we're hearing from our corporate clients as a little bit of a wait and see attitude. I do think you see obvious differences across sectors. Some sectors are going to be much more exposed than others and have more complicated problems to solve. And also across the size of the clients, I think smaller clients, small business and smaller corporates are probably a little bit more challenged.

I think the larger corporates have a bit more experience dealing with these things and more resources to manage. So that's a little bit our read of the situation right now, but certainly a bit of a wait and see attitude. It's hard to make long term decisions right now, and so we'll see how that plays out.

Yeah. And just one question on the NII X markets holding at 90. Can you just walk us through the puts and takes of just what's the new curve you're using, which also is subject to change every day? And what might have been some of the positive offsets to if you put in more expected cuts than you had before? Thanks.

Yeah, that's a good question, Ken. You're right. So if you remember, last quarter we said that we had one cut in the curve. I think latest curve has something like three cuts. And we've talked a lot obviously about how we're asset sensitive, you now see our EAR disclosed in the supplement, and probably our empirical EAR is a little bit higher than our modeled EAR as a result of the relatively lower than modeled rates paid in consumer.

So when you put that together, all else equal, the drop in the weighted average IORB, which is about 22 basis points, should produce a notable headwind in our NII ex markets.

Even the curve, basically. Yeah, that's just mechanically Guaranteed not to happen.

As Ken said. So that's mechanically just falling through the curve. So yeah, your question is that given that, why are you not revising down? And the answer to that is that across all the puts and takes actually, our number is a tiny bit lower, it's just not enough to warrant a change in the outlook, but we do have some offsets. So we have some balance effects that are favorable.

You will have noted that I talked about higher wholesale deposit balances, for example. We see beta outperforming in a couple of different places in CDs and in wholesale. The other thing is that you'll recall that we talked before about having a placeholder in our NII outlook for the potential impact of the card late fee rule. We've now removed that, so that's a little bit of an offset as well. So that's kind of how you get to unchanged, even though clearly all else equal, the lower expected front end rates are a headwind.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Erika Najarian with UBS. You may proceed.

Yes, good morning. Jamie, you were on the media today talking about potential economic turbulence. But Jeremy also mentioned that banking should be the banking system should be a source of strength in this turbulence. The equity market always seems to think about the banks as weaker players given how they trade the stocks more on sentiment and fear rather than the math of the ability of banks to absorb provisions going forward if we do fall into a slower economic downturn.

So I guess just the question here is, you double click on how you think this is going to impact the economy going forward, and maybe double click on Jeremy's statement that the banking system should be a source of strength?

Before Jamie answers that, Erica, I just want to make one brief comment, which is the banking system being a source of strength means what it says. In other words, banks doing their job to support the economy. That's not a statement about bank equity performance and the extent to which banks are cyclical or not. Obviously, a recessionary environment, as I've frequently said, all else equal, is bad for banks from an equity performance perspective. We're talking about the financial strength of banks' balance sheets and our ability to support our clients in the difficult moment.

Everyone trades stocks in a different way, so sentiment banks are a cork in the ocean when it comes to the economy. If the economy gets worse, credit losses will go up, volumes can change, yield curves can change, We're not predicting all of that. What I would say is our excellent economist, Michael Farley, called him this morning, specifically to ask him how they're looking at their forecast today. They think it's about fiftyfifty for a recession, so I'll just refer to that. Obviously, if there's a recession, credit losses will go up, and other factors will change too.

I think the one thing I'll add to what Jeremy said is, and I don't usually pay that much attention to anecdotes, but this time I am. And I think you're going to see a lot of companies, you guys, not you, but the analyst community has already reduced its earnings estimates for the S and P by 5%, so now it's up five as opposed to up 10. My guess is that it be zero and negative five probably the next month. And then you're going to hear 1,000 companies report, and they're going to tell you what their guidance is. My guess is a lot.

We'll remove it. They're going to tell you what they think it might do to their customers, their base, their earnings, their costs, their tariffs. It's different for every company, but I assume you'll see that. And anecdotally, a lot of people are not doing things because of this. They're going to wait and see.

And that's M and A, that's M and A with middle market companies, that's people's hiring plans and stuff like that. So people have to adjust this new environment. And I think you will see what it is. I just also want to point out, just so you can round it up, this is to make you feel comfortable, not uncomfortable, When COVID hit, unemployment went from like four percent to 15% in a couple of months, and we had to add to reserves in a two month period of $15,000,000,000 And then to show you how stupid CECL is, in a three quarter period, we took down the $15,000,000,000 So that just sizes up a bad recession. If it's a mild recession, it will be less than that.

If it's a really bad recession, it'll be more than that. Either way, we can handle it and serve our clients. Earnings won't be great and the stock to go down, which I look at as an opportunity to buy back more stock.

Got it. And a second follow-up question. And I don't disagree with you guys on equity market performance of bank stocks. It's just that the mindset of portfolio managers is they always go back to sort of the lowest common denominator of fundamental performance versus thinking about resilience. And to that point, the second question is on the reserve.

You know, Jeremy, you mentioned a weighted average unemployment rate of 5.8%. I think that's above where economists are thinking we could peak even in a recession scenario. How should we think about any incremental builds from here? And what you're going, obviously deterioration in the outlook, but, what more do you need to see in terms of how you make decisions about further builds from here?

Yeah, Ericka, it's a good question, but the truth is there's just a little bit too much uncertainty right now for me to give an outlook for reserves, which is generally not a thing that we do anyway. As I mentioned in my prepared remarks, the accident forecast at the end of the quarter was the sort of bog standard, no landing, barely any increase in unemployment. Given that we knew at the time that there were some big pending announcements and there was quite a bit of elevated uncertainty around that, it felt like the forecasts were kind of lagging because people were just waiting to actually get the information, and so it felt appropriate to add a little bit of downside skew to our probability assessment, which is what led to the increase and what led to the bill. We use this weighted average unemployment thing as a useful way to help explain what's going on inside the reserve, but obviously the actual mechanisms are quite complex: the depth of an eventual recession, the timing of it, distribution of outcomes, which sectors it hits, idiosyncratic stuff and wholesale, there's a lot. I think on consumers, Jamie mentioned, it is worth remembering that by far the most important variable is unemployment.

So if the labor market remains very strong, consumer credit will probably be fine. If it doesn't, then you're going to see it play through the way it always does.

Thank you. Our next question comes from John McDonald with Truist Securities. You may proceed.

Hi, good morning. Jeremy, on that same topic, no change to the full year credit card net charge off forecast. How do we square that with the rising recession risk? Is it because you already have a couple of months of delinquencies kind of baked in the cake and this is more an issue for next year or just too early to call?

We should have not given you that forecast. We don't know what the number is going to be. I would say that's a short term number, and based on what's happening today, there's a wide range of potential outcomes.

Yeah, okay. Okay, yeah, that's what we were kind of thinking.

Mechanically, John, though, as you alluded to, there are some mechanical elements to the way a car charge off works that means that it's pretty baked So sort of echoing Jamie's point, it just doesn't necessarily tell you that much about what might actually happen through the end of the year. Even if unemployment were to increase significantly, it probably wouldn't flow through the charge offs until later.

Okay, got it. And then just on capital, how does this type of macro uncertainty impact your thinking around conserving capital as opposed to deploying it through your investment agenda and buybacks as the stock gets cheaper? Are you still looking to arrest the increase or does this change it?

The investment that we do in banks, branches, technology, AI is going to continue regardless of the environment. Then we have to pay what happens to Basel III and CCAR and GSIFI and all that, dollars 30,000,000,000 to $60,000,000,000 of excess capital, And in the Chairman's letter, I wrote about what we think of that. But based upon the environment, the turbulent issues, I like having excess capital. We are prepared for any environment, and that's so we can serve clients. That's not for any other reason.

But we have plenty of capital and plenty of liquidity to get through whatever the stormy seas are.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Matt O'Connor with Deutsche Bank. Your line is open.

Good morning. Just wanted to drill down on the credit card spend. Any comments in terms of changing patterns on the consumer card spend? There's been headlines and travel kind of going down. Just talk about some of puts and takes in that up 7% year over year.

Yeah, that's a good question. We're seeing that too, so let me talk about travel. We obviously saw the airlines discuss what they are seeing as headwinds for them, specifically in airline travel, and we're seeing that too through the card spend. It's not obvious to us that that's necessarily an indicator for broader patterns. There are a variety of potential explanations for the narrow drop in airline spend.

And as I mentioned previously, another thing that we are seeing looking at the April data is what would appear to be a little bit of front loading of spending, specifically in items that might have prices go up So you see people behaving rationally, and I have noted even, you hear anecdotes and I've seen evidence of companies specifically advertising, we have pre tariff inventory and so on and so forth. So it's not that surprising that you're seeing that a little bit in the spending data. The other thing that people are kind of interested in this space is what's happening by income band, because we have seen some of the retailers and other folks talking about weaknesses in the lower income segment. And I think when we look at our card data and also our cash buffers in people's checking accounts, of course it is true that it is relatively weaker in the lower income segment.

But when you take a step back and you ask, are we seeing signs of distress in the lower income segment? The answer is no. So sure, the margin cash buffers are lower, and you see some rotation of spend, and spending is a little bit weaker than it was in the peak spending moments, but actually some of the increases in spending that we're seeing in April are actually coming from the lower income segment. So no evidence of distress, I would say.

Okay. That's helpful color. And then just separately, if we look at

delinquencies for the home lending, they increased both Q2 and year over year. Is that just some of the noise from the First Republic deal as you take the marks upfront and then those portfolios essentially reseasing from an accounting point of view? Or is there something else going on there?

Sorry, I actually didn't hear which of these delinquencies in home lending.

Interesting. I haven't looked at that. We'll have to get back to you on that. Whatever it is, it wasn't important enough to get raised,

so It could be the First Republic in twenty years.

Yes, anything is possible. We'll get back to you on that.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Steven Chubak with Wolfe Research. You may proceed.

Hi, good morning and thanks for taking my questions. Wanted to start off with one on the proposed SLR changes and just the impact of rate volatility. The treasury is committed to providing relief to the banks under the SLR just to help mitigate some of the volatility in the ten year. But given the geopolitical concerns, weakening global demand for treasuries, how does it inform your appetite just for purchasing US Treasuries if those reforms are implemented? And just how you're managing rate risk maybe more holistically across the firm just in light of some of the recent volatility?

SLR alone isn't going to change that much for us. It may change for other people. You really need reform across SLR, GSIPI, CCAR, Basel III and LCR, all of which have deep flaws in them, to make a material change. And remember, it's not relief to the banks. It's relief to the markets.

JPMorgan will be fine with or without an SLR change. The reason to change some of these things is so banks, the big market makers can intermediate more in the markets. If they don't, they do, spreads will come in, there will be more active traders. If they don't, the Fed will have to intermediate, which I think is just a bad policy idea. Every time there's a kerfuffle in the markets, the Fed has to come in and intermediate.

So they should make these changes. The reason why is when you have very a lot of volatile markets and very widespread and low liquidity in treasuries, it affects all other capital markets. That's the reason to do it, not as a favor to the banks themselves. Anyway and we don't take more interest rate exposure to this in any way, shape or form. So it's not like we're going to change our position.

We intermediate the markets, help clients do what they have to do. And if the banks could take bigger positions, they would have just larger dealer positions and basically take not much more interest rate exposure. I should say our folks did a fabulous job trading this quarter.

Steve, all I would add to that is that it is of course true, and we all remember the moment a few years ago when intermediaries were in fact bound by us alone as a result of the expansion of deposit base, and extraordinary actions needed to be taken to address that. So we've seen when it is binding and it works not as designed, which is why we do very much agree that it should be fixed. I think our point is a little bit, as Jamie said in his chairman's letter, that it's not the only thing that needs to be fixed, and there are interactions among all these things, and we as a bank are not particularly bound by it. There is some interesting nuance too in terms of the potential TLAC issuance impact there, is quite sensitive to which particular fix gets put in, so that'll be an interesting thing to watch.

Thank you both for that perspective. Just for my follow-up, did want to ask on the market's outlook. So admittedly less surprising to hear some of the cautious IB commentary in light of the uncertainty, but was hoping you could just speak to the markets businesses, which have been performing extraordinarily well of late, and just given the combination of elevated volatility, but also some indications that clients are taking down risk, how you expect that business to perform over the coming quarters?

Yeah, it's a good question. As you know, Steve, we're obviously not going to give markets guidance. Your guess is as good as ours at some level, but the ingredients are the right ingredients. We've often discussed about how this business, all else equal, benefits from a volatile environment if markets are operating relatively normally, which they more or less have been. Of course, it's not guaranteed.

We need to do a good job managing the risk. And yeah, there are states of the world where if our clients are struggling or deleveraging or taking down risk, that could be a headwind for us. So we're going to just do what we always do and try to manage the risk well and serve our clients, but we were happy to see the performance this quarter.

That's great. Thank you both for taking my questions.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Gerard Cassidy with RBC Capital Markets. You may proceed.

Thank you. Hi Jeremy and Jamie. Can you guys share with us, if you take a look at the nontraditional lenders, private credit lenders, they've been very active in grabbing market share from the traditional commercial banks over the last two or three years, particularly since the initial Basel III endgame proposal came out in July of twenty three, which is no longer applicable. But are you guys seeing any opportunities where customers may reintermediate back into the banks like your bank because of this volatility?

I mean, it's hard to tell, Gerard. I think it's too early to tell, But what I would say is that it kind of your question aligns with what we've been saying about this space for some time, which is we want to be product agnostic here and give our clients the best option that makes sense for them So whether that's a traditional syndicated lending facility or something that looks more like a uni tranche direct lending type structure, we're open for business for all of it. And I would say that when we talk about the banking system being a source of strength in this environment, part of what we're talking about is our commitment and willingness to lend through cycles, as we've always done in the past, and that we have the underwriting capability and the capital and the liquidity and the experience to be reliable lenders and serving our clients no matter what type of environment we're in. So if that means that we have an opportunity to compete incrementally even more effectively in this environment, that'll be great.

Very good, thank you. And then as a follow-up, you both just talked about the potential changes to the different regulatory outcomes for you and your peers, whether it's SLR or the G SIB buffer, etcetera. Can you opine for us your views? Are you more confident with the new administration, the new personnel, whether it's treasury secretary, business, or others, the nominees for different regulatory heads, that there will be a better chance of real regulatory reform, they see it the way you guys do, versus the prior administration?

Mean, Gerard, we always say this, and it's true, which is that we work with all administrations and every administration as constructively as possible to express our opinions and advocate for the things that we think are right for the banking system and for the economy as a whole, and that was true before, and it's true now with this administration as well. Clearly, the administration has been quite vocal about wanting more pro growth policies at the margin and for wanting to make it easier for banks participate more constructively in the economy. And as we see the various folks and the various agencies go through the confirmation process, it will be helpful to have people in seats and get to work on some of the things that we want to get done. So let's see how that plays out, but we're looking forward to continuing to engage constructively.

I think there's a deep recognition of the flaws in the system, And there should be, and fortunately they're to take a good look at it.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Ebrahim Poonawala with Bank of America. You may proceed.

Thank you. Good morning. I guess, just wanted to follow-up on the macro uncertainty. I think when you talk to investors, we've gone from enthusiasm for a pro business administration to a lot of headwinds. And I think Jamie mentioned you'll have companies take down guidance, etcetera, potentially over the coming weeks.

JPMorgan Chase (JPM) Q1 2025 Earnings Call Transcript

Company Participants