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

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

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 2026 Earnings Call. The presentation is available on JPMorgan Chase's website. Please refer to the disclaimer in the back concerning forward-looking statements. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to JPMorgan Chase's Chairman and CEO, Jamie Dimon, and Chief Financial Officer, Jeremy Barnum. Mr. Barnum, please go ahead.

Thank you very much, and good morning, everyone. This quarter, the firm reported net income of $16.5 billion and EPS of $5.94, with an ROTCE of 23%. Revenue of $50.5 billion was up 10% year-on-year, primarily driven by higher markets revenue, higher asset management and investment banking fees, and higher NII driven by the impact of balance sheet growth, predominantly offset by the impact of lower rates. Expenses of $26.9 billion were up 14% year-on-year, largely driven by higher compensation, including higher revenue-related compensation and growth in front office employees, as well as higher brokerage expense and distribution fees. The increase also reflects the absence of an FDIC special accrual release in the prior year. Credit costs of $2.5 billion, with net charge-offs of $2.3 billion and a net reserve build of $191 million.

In terms of the balance sheet, we ended the quarter with a standardized CT1 ratio of 14.3%, down 30 basis points versus the prior quarter, as net income was more than offset by capital distributions and higher RWA. This quarter's standardized RWA is up $60 billion, primarily driven by the Markets business, reflecting higher client activity, seasonal effects, and higher energy prices, which resulted in higher RWA across market risk and credit risk ex lending. Now, let me spend a few minutes on the recently released Basel III Endgame and G-SIB reproposals. I'll start by acknowledging that this has been a long journey, and getting it done across multiple regulators and applied to the full set of U.S. banks is unquestionably a difficult task. With that said, we do have some concerns with elements of what's been put forward, primarily with the G-SIB proposal.

On the left-hand side, we show you a preliminary estimate of the impact on JPMorgan Chase next to what the Fed has disclosed for the category one and two banks in aggregate. Our results are worse in each category. Estimated RWA is higher, G-SIB is worse, and because our CCAR losses are below the floor, the Fed's reduction is not going to apply to us. The result is that under the proposed rules, our CT1 capital would increase around 4%, while the Fed's estimate for large banks is about a 5% reduction. Our longstanding position has been that the agencies should calculate each component of the capital requirements correctly, without regard to what that may mean for any specific firm or for the broader industry. To the extent regulators want to add conservatism, they should make that explicit rather than embedding it in methodological choices.

Turning to G-SIB on the right, the surcharge on the reproposed rule looks quite high when placed in the historical context, as the chart clearly illustrates. As many of you know, we have been on the record for the better part of this last decade advocating for averaging, smaller buckets, GDP scaling, and reweighting short-term wholesale funding to 20%, and we were glad to see many of those concepts in the NPR. However, while we have every reason to believe that the Fed's published estimate of a 3.8% reduction in capital associated with the G-SIB NPR is accurate when defined narrowly, it's important to understand that under the current rule, the surcharges for almost all of the G-SIB banks are scheduled to increase meaningfully over the next two years simply as a result of recent growth in the system, despite, in our view, no change in real-world systemic risk.

In addition to that background increase, the proposed change in the short-term wholesale funding methodology adds about $22 billion of G-SIB-specific capital, principally to the money center banks, of which we represent about $13 billion, while in the process, making the methodology less risk-sensitive and less consistent with the Fed's original rationale for including it. This could have been addressed by better adjusting for growth in the system, but it wasn't enough. The net result is that we need to plan for 5.2% in 2028, a 70 basis point increase from the current 4.5% requirement, which when combined with the RWA increase from the Basel III Endgame NPR, results in a total increase of about $20 billion of G-SIB capital based on our current balance sheet. This persistent miscalibration of the U.S. surcharge is obviously bad for international competitiveness, but more importantly, domestically.

This means that the cost of credit from JPMorgan Chase to U.S. households and businesses is likely higher than it is from other domestic non-G-SIB banks. We recognize that we are larger and more systemically important than even large domestic peers. In the end, the question is how much more should the cost be? It is very hard to reconcile the principles articulated in the 2015 Fed G-SIB white paper with an outcome where JPMorgan Chase has $109 billion of G-SIB surcharge. Obviously, the rules aren't final yet, and this is what the comment process is for. As Jamie wrote in his Chairman's letter, everyone wants to move on, so our comments will be very focused. We feel strongly that the framework should be coherent and the system would therefore be better off with these outstanding points addressed. Now, moving to our businesses.

CCB reported net income of $5 billion. Revenue of $19.6 billion was up 7% year-on-year, predominantly driven by higher card NII, largely on higher revolving balances and higher operating lease income in auto. A few points to highlight. Notwithstanding the recent volatility in market and gas prices, based on our data, consumers and small businesses remain resilient, with consumer spend growth continuing above last year's pace. Average deposits were up 2% year-on-year and quarter-on-quarter, driven by account growth and moderating yield-seeking flows. Client investment assets were up 18% year-on-year, driven by market performance and healthy net inflows. In home lending, originations of $13.7 billion increased 46% year-on-year, predominantly driven by refi performance. Next, the CIB reported net income of $9 billion. Revenue of $23.4 billion was up 19% year-on-year, driven by higher revenues across the businesses.

To give a bit more color, IB fees were up 28% year-on-year, driven by strong performance across M&A and equity underwriting, partially offset by lower debt underwriting. Looking ahead, client engagement and pipelines remain healthy, but of course, developments in the Middle East could have an impact on deal execution and timing. In Markets, FICC income was up 21% year-on-year with strong performance across the businesses, partially offset by lower revenue and rates. Equities was up 17% from increased client activity. Turning to Asset and Wealth Management, AWM reported net income of $1.8 billion, with pre-tax margin of 35%. Revenue of $6.4 billion was up 11% 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. Long-term net inflows were $54 billion, with continued strength across fixed income, equity, and multi-asset.

AUM of $4.8 trillion was up 16% year-on-year, and client assets of $7.1 trillion were up 18% year-on-year, driven by higher market levels and continued net inflows. And before turning to the outlook, corporate reported net income of $699 million on revenue of $1.2 billion. In terms of the full year 2026 outlook, we continue to expect NII ex markets to be about $95 billion. We now expect total NII to be approximately $103 billion as a function of markets NII decreasing to about $8 billion, predominantly due to rates, which we expect will be primarily offset in NIR. The adjusted expense outlook continues to be about $105 billion, and the card net charge-off rate continues to be approximately 3.4%. With that, we're now happy to take your questions. So let's open the line for Q&A.

If you would like to ask a question, please press star one to be entered into the queue. We kindly request that you ask one question and only one related follow-up. If you would like to ask an additional question, please press star one to be re-entered into the queue. Our first question comes from Steven Chubak with Wolfe Research. Your line is open.

Hi, good morning, Jamie and Jeremy. Thanks for taking my questions. Maybe to start on the AI cash tool, which, Jamie, you commented on in your letter, there's been lots of focus on this particular, at least launch, given that this is a tool which could potentially result in some consumer deposit pressure, as well as drive some impact on increased competition as well as higher deposit betas. I was hoping you could just speak to how you see deposit competition unfolding as similar smart tools become more widespread.

Yeah, it's a great question, and obviously, it's early stages for this particular product. You have to look at it literally segment by segment, how people manage their money, how they want to manage their money. People are pretty astute at it, particularly the higher net worth. They have tons of choices. They often have money at many different places. The question for us is, how can we make it easier for them to manage their money in a way they're comfortable? Most of you on this call, you have in your mind how much stays in a checking account, and then you write a ticket to a money market fund or a deposit account, something like that. That's all we're trying to do. We provide great values to people.

Morgan, I remind people, if you have this product, you have ATMs, you got branches, you got advice, you have instant payment systems like Zelle. We look at the whole basket, how we can do a better job for the client. Yeah, it may squeeze some margin somewhere and create more competition somewhere. That's life. Jeff Bezos always says, "Your margin is my opportunity," and I kind of agree with that. We're trying to look at the world from the point of view of the customer. What more can we do with them? This is really early stages. As you know, there's tons of competition out there for money.

Yeah, exactly. Steve, the only thing I was going to add to that, it's sort of understandable that this has gotten attention because it has sort of AI in it and it's kind of interesting. As Jamie says, and as you highlighted in your question, competition for deposits has always been very intense. It continues to be intense, and we have both external and internal competition from higher-yielding alternatives and people sort of.

Optimize that and it's part of running the business. As also Jamie just alluded to, this thing is kind of not even live yet, and it's sort of targeted at a very small subset of the client base, particularly clients with investments, where we think there's an opportunity to take a larger share of the investment wallet as part of this. It's understandable the amount of interest that it's gotten, but I think the right way to think of it is sort of as an experiment right now.

No, that's helpful context. Maybe switching gears just to the Basel III capital proposal, certainly helpful in terms of how you frame some of the shortcomings, some potential areas for improvement. Maybe just focusing in on the RWA inflationary impacts, does the guidance that you've laid out contemplate any mitigating actions you might pursue? Is there any potential mitigation that you envisage? Do you have any preliminary views just on the magnitude of SCB relief that you could see from the removal of some of the double counting of markets or operational risk? I recognize that piece is a little bit more opaque.

Yeah, those are interesting questions. I think obviously we are kind of well-practiced over the course of the last decade and a half on understanding the rules in detail and ensuring that we're using our financial resources efficiently to support the client franchise. I think the hope is that the rules land in a stage where there is nothing in them which sort of takes an otherwise good and healthy business and makes it completely non-economic. I think we've alluded to a couple of areas where, if you look at the presentation slide on the bottom right-hand side, we talked about targeted RWA clarifications needed. There's this issue with high-yield repo collateral and some stuff about advised lines where the proposal is a little bit unclear about what the actual impact would be, and in some versions of the world, we think it creates irrational results.

Broadly, I don't think this is a story about optimization at this point. I think this is a story about a rule set that is converging to a place, and then we need to just grow the business and deploy the resources to serve our clients. Obviously, we have said a lot about G-SIB on this page. I guess I don't really have more to say unless you ask just a big question on G-SIB, but that is the one area where we think it's kind of a significant disincentive to a particular type of business, a particular some markets business.

I guess I would just make the point that we've often made publicly that the depth and breadth of U.S. capital markets is a key competitive national advantage, and regulatory capital rules that at the margin discourage a dynamic secondary market in the United States with active participation by banks is, in our view, sort of not great. That's part of the reason that we're so focused on G-SIB, because it disproportionately affects that business.

Anything you could speak to just in terms of the removal of the double counting?

Oh, yeah. Sorry, I forgot about that part of your question. Yeah. As you know, we're currently below the floor, right? Obviously, if that is the new normal, then if the double count is addressed by removing further things from stress testing, it wouldn't have any impact. If the double count is addressed by modifying the operational risk calculation in RWA, then it might have some impact. Obviously, it's far from guaranteed that we will be a bank that is permanently below the floor. I suspect that issue is more relevant for institutions whose business mix is such that they're going to tend to structurally be above the floor. It's a little bit unclear for us as things settle down, whether we're going to bounce around above and below the floor or tend to be structurally above the floor. We'll see.

I think removal of the double count is definitely something we support. It's probably not our number one priority at this point because some progress has been made on that front.

Yeah. Can I just also just mention on the Global Market Shock? It's never been in the real world all these years, including during the COVID and then before the Great Crisis, nothing like what they have. We already have $80 billion or $90 billion of capital for the trading books. Those numbers just, they're completely out of whack with reality. Operational risk capital, I can't avoid saying it, is another crazy, obtuse one in 1,000 year thing. Worse than that, in my opinion, they create risk-weighted assets. Every company in the world has operational risk, and they artificially create risk-weighted assets which do not exist, and this locks up a lot of capital liquidity for eternity for no good reason. I understand there's operational risk.

I think there are real ways to measure it, by the way, which I point out, which is not this artificial, over-architected academic exercise. There's operational risk in margin loans that are late and using subprime collateral as opposed to prime collateral and how you process things, and that's what they should really be focusing, reducing actual operational risk as opposed to these calculations which you can't change. If it all comes from the mortgage business and you got out of the mortgage business, it still stays there. Who would do something like that? It's time to really look at this stuff and do it right.

Well said. Well, thanks so much for taking my questions.

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

Yes. Thank you. Good morning. Jeremy, my first question is for you. You modified the Markets NII outlook given the change in rates between end of February and today. I'm wondering, as we think about the ex-market NII number of $95 billion, you retain that? What are sort of the offsets to higher rates and the asset sensitivity if we don't have cuts for the rest of the year?

Yeah, sure. It's a good question because I think we have said that we're asset sensitive and rates are a little bit higher as a removal of the cuts in the back half of the year. You might have otherwise expected us to revise the NII ex markets up a little bit. Just to do a little mental math, the EAR that we've just disclosed is $1.8 billion. As a result of the fact that the cuts were pretty backdated, the impact on the full year average is only about 20 basis points. The amount of upward revision that you might have otherwise expected is really quite small when you do that math. There were some other bits of up and down noise, some rounding effects. That is essentially the reason the numbers aren't changed.

I don't think there's too much to read into it.

Got it. Perfectly clear. My second question is for Jamie. Of course, we were all unpacking your Chairman's letter from a few weeks ago. One of the topics that you wrote about, and you've spoken about at length in the past, is on private credit. I think we fully appreciate what JPMorgan's view here is. Given all of the headlines that this topic has garnered, I guess the question here for you and your team is, if we do have a recession and higher defaults and higher severity and cumulative losses in leveraged lending, what is the ultimate loss back to the banks? Because as we understand, the banks are fairly well protected in terms of structure.

While you address this in your letter, for those that maybe hadn't had time to read it and that are listening to this call, do you think that if we do have a default cycle in private credit, that it will be systemic?

No, I was quite clear. I don't think so. I gave the big numbers. Private credit leveraged lending is like $1.7 trillion. High yield bonds are something like $1.7 trillion. Bank syndicated leverage loans are like $1.7 trillion. Investment grade debt's $13 trillion. Mortgage debt's like $13 trillion. There's a lot of other stuff out there. I pointed out that I think there's been some weakening in underwriting, and not just by private credit, elsewhere. There will be a credit cycle one day. I think when there's a credit cycle, losses will be worse than people expect relative to the scenario. I don't think it's systemic. It almost can't be systemic at that size relative to anything else. When recessions happen and values go down and people refi at higher rates, there'll be stress and strain in the system.

Are people prepared for that? I can't speak for other banks, but most of these things are on top of, you have to have very large losses in private credit before at least it looks like banks are going to get hit or something like that. It doesn't mean you won't feel some stress and strain, and that you might have to do something about it, but I'm not particularly worried about it. What I'd be more worried about, when there's a credit cycle, how's that going to filter through the whole system? That, to me, is a bigger issue. I also pointed out, corporations in general, the debt's not too high. Consumers in general, the debt's not too high. Most of the excess debt is in government debt at this point.

There are positives and negatives as you look at what's going to happen if there's a cycle. Of course, we always worry about what happens with every cycle. Like I said, I think it'll be worse than people expect. You can go look at what happens in other cycles to various credit and industries, et cetera. The other thing which almost always happens is that there's an industry which surprises people. If you go back to the year 2000, people were surprised there was utilities and telecom, Grandma stocks that got hit. Things changed. You go into 2008, it was media companies and newspapers, Warren Buffett stocks. Things change. This time you have all the Twittersphere about software, which we'll see. It might be software, it might not. Something always happens that people don't expect in credit.

Thank you. Our next question comes from John McDonald with Truist Securities. Your line is open.

Hi. Good morning. I wanted to ask you a question about reserves. Could you talk about scenario weighting and how your evolving views on the macro risks out there factor into your reserve setting process and how that played out this quarter?

Yeah. John, good question because I think at a high level, if you look at the allowance, it's quite small and you might wonder what's going on there given everything that's happening in the Middle East, especially given our historical stance about wanting to be conservative and concerns about the geopolitical dynamics. A couple things in there. One, as you know, we start the reserve, the allowance calculation process with a sort of model-based approach that's based on economic forecasts. Actually, just to make it easier to track, let me start with a little bit the punchline, which is we actually did not change the weights this quarter. With that said, on sort of unchanged weights flowing through the economic outlook actually lowered the weighted average unemployment rate in the allowance build out from 5.8%-5.6%.

That created some tailwinds across the numbers primarily in consumer, but also a little bit in wholesale. We also had a little bit of a release consumer in home lending. I think it was about $150 million, maybe $110 or something, anyway, which was an HPI upward revision, so kind of unrelated to everything else. Under the covers, there are some builds in wholesale as a function of loan growth and also some idiosyncratic downgrades here and there. Nothing dramatic. In the place that you would expect to see allowance build, you are seeing some. At a high level, we did sort of have a very conscious debate about this as a company, like should we add downside skew to the weights this quarter given everything that's going on?

Our conclusion was that the existing kind of conservative bias in the allowance was sufficient, and we would just wait and see to see how things developed and to the extent that things, hopefully they don't, but if we get some of the downside case outcomes with higher energy prices that wind up having an impact on the core global economic outlook, then that would actually flow naturally through the process. We can see kind of how that plays out.

Okay. Thanks, Jeremy. Separately, I was wondering about any changes to your outlook for loan and deposit growth. Your balance sheet growth was very strong this quarter, a lot of it seeming to be in the Markets business. I am just looking for more color on the drivers of growth this quarter and how it affects your outlook for loan and deposit growth this year.

Sure. I would say that this quarter's growth, yeah, as you said, primarily Markets, primarily low-density stuff that's not contributing a lot to RWA, secured financing of various sorts, and a lot of that's seasonal. There is a sort of background trend of growth in the size of the Markets business and in the size of the Markets balance sheet. I don't think that anything happened this quarter that was sort of particularly off-trend in that respect. In terms of the firm-wide overall outlook, I think arguably the single most significant number is what we said about card loan growth expectations at Company Update, which is that we said we expected 6% or maybe a little bit more, and that hasn't really changed. That's still kind of our core expectation. In the rest of the franchise, it's really pretty modest growth overall.

We actually have some headwinds in Home Lending as a result of some First Republic portfolio roll-off and stuff like that. To a significant degree, some of that's going to get driven by acquisition financing that we hold on balance sheet for a while, that some of that's a little bit of a driver this quarter as well. Of course, if things deteriorate, which we very much hope they don't, that tends to produce lower loan demand. We'll see what happens there, but we're going to be there for our clients for whatever they need. The final building block of this is Markets, which as you know, has been actually, interestingly enough, the primary driver of wholesale loan growth recently. There, it's going to be very opportunistic.

A lot of it is kind of the data center lending type stuff and related things where we're going to participate when the terms make sense, but we're going to be very willing to walk away if we don't like it. That's going to be more a matter of just seeing what the opportunity set looks like and how we feel about the risks.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Manan Gosalia from Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.

Hi. Good morning. Jeremy, you have one of the best views on the U.S. consumer. You mentioned that the economy is resilient, the consumer is healthy. Could you give us some more color on what you're seeing there? How resilient is consumer spend and credit if energy prices remain high? Are there any signs of cracks that you're seeing at all?

Yeah. It's a good question. It's the right question. It's a question we get a lot, and I sort of struggle to say something new and interesting every quarter. There really is not anything new or interesting to say this quarter. We've looked at it through every angle, early roll rates, delinquency rates, cash buffer, spend, discretionary spend, non-discretionary spend. It all looks consistent with prior trends and fundamentally healthy. Let me add maybe just a little bit of nuance in the context of energy prices and what's going on this quarter. I think gas or energy cost is something like 3% of the typical consumer's expenditure, at least in our portfolio. It's not nothing, but it's not overwhelming.

We've looked to see if there's kind of evidence in there of people trading, decreasing other discretionary spending to adjust for higher gas prices, but it's just kind of not enough yet to be visible. I would caution, though, I think it remains fundamentally the case that the biggest single reason that the consumer credit performance is healthy is that the labor market is strong. If you get bad outcomes in the Middle East, much higher energy prices or other problems that sort of do eventually crack what has been, I think from many people's perspective, a surprisingly resilient American economy and a very resilient U.S. consumer, and that winds up having knock-on effects on the labor market, then you will see that come through, clearly. Right now, in the end, the story remains the same, which is resilient consumer that's doing fine despite higher gas prices.

Yeah. I would just add, we're really getting too fine-tuned here. It's being helped right now by higher tax refunds, too.

That's really helpful. Thank you. A separate follow-up, just on the trading business, one is, are you seeing any signs of bad volatility here, or were things in March still pretty good? If we look at trading assets that were up pretty significantly quarter-on-quarter, was there anything specific in the environment that drove that? Was that business as usual or is this some of the deployment, the ongoing deployment of excess capital, Jeremy, that you've been talking about?

Okay. Sorry. I think there are several embedded questions in your follow-up questions. Let me try to do this efficiently. In short, no. We haven't really seen any so-called bad volatility. I mean, I'm sure there are pockets of that in some markets, but broadly at a high level, I think what we mean by that is the types of extremely gappy discontinuous markets with low liquidity that keep clients on the sidelines. As I say, I'm sure there have been pockets of that in certain subsegments of certain asset classes. In general, that has not been a characteristic of this quarter, which is, I think, part of the reason that the performance has been very good.

On trading assets, as I said a second ago, I think that was mostly BAU growth, mostly seasonal, low-risk density, and not particularly a function of capital deployment, one way or the other. I think to the extent that that plays out, that'll be a longer-term phenomenon. Just to refer you back to my comments and Company Update, I think to really get that right, you need both to free up capital, but also to free up liquidity to allow banks to deploy against the broadest possible set of opportunities to support the real economy, not just kind of high-risk density opportunities that require less liquidity per unit of capital.

I appreciate that. Thanks for taking my questions.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Mike Mayo with Wells Fargo Securities. Your line is open.

Hi. Jamie, in your CEO letter, as was mentioned, you talked about private credit, and you mentioned the $1.7 trillion private credit market, which didn't really exist two decades ago, as you know. How much of that $1.7 trillion would you say is a substitution effect from banks to private credit, and how much of that might be types of credit you never would have originated in the first place? With the regulatory changes and with what's happening in the market, do you think you can recapture some of that share? More generally, what are you doing with regard to the collateral? There are news headlines this past quarter that you're becoming more conservative with that. Lastly, what kind of spreads are you getting? Are the spreads improving on this or staying the same?

Yeah. Those are all really good questions. The trillion actually was there before. There was always this, and banks did it. In some ways it was arbitraged because banks were really discouraged from doing leveraged lending over a certain amount of leverage. Of course, the competitive world finds new ways to do things, which we're not against how they do it. There's a little bit of rate arbitrage and all these various things. I do think, I mean, it's really hard to say that half of it probably was arbitrage, that banks could pick up some of that. Banks also look at relationships differently. When a bank does a loan in middle-market leveraged lending, that's what this is.

We've been doing this for a long period of time, but we look at the relationship too extensively, not just the loan, but the rest of the relationship, payments, custody, asset management type of services, et cetera. Maybe some will come back. I'm not particularly concerned about it. The spreads, you could just track how spreads move around. Every bank does it differently, and every bank charges differently and stuff like that. Depending on how concerned they are, they're going to raise the spreads of what they're charging for private credit. Private credit spreads themselves and what they charge their clients have gone up and down, and you've actually seen loans go back and forth every now and then from the private credit market to the bank syndicated loan market. We'll see.

We always had what we call marking rights to look at the underlying collateral. That's just a right that protects you and gives you certain rights, things like that. Obviously, if you ever see credit getting worse, and it's gotten not terribly worse, the actual credit, which a lot of these private equity, private credit guys are pointing out, the actual credit hasn't gotten that much worse. There are pockets where it has, and credit spreads themselves haven't gotten much worse in general, but there are pockets where it has. We'll be watching it closely. We think we're okay on all that. It remains to be seen.

I think the big point to me, Mike, is I don't think it's systemic, but I do think when the credit cycle, and I'm not referring to private credit here, because of underwriting and leverage and PIKs and competition, we've had a cycle for a long time. A lot of people are late to this game. I just don't expect every player is going to be the same. I think some will be. It won't be a bell curve. It'll be something different than that, and people are going to be surprised that some of the players aren't particularly good at it, and that business will probably come back to banks.

Separately, Jeremy, you mentioned no change in the core NII despite being asset sensitive. In terms of the deposit growth, you had some really amazing deposit growth and then kind of hit an air pocket for a little while. In this quarter, consumer deposits were up 2%. I guess tax has probably helped that out. Is this the start to getting back on that higher deposit growth path or not yet?

Well, I think air pocket is a little bit of a strong word, but fair enough. I recognize the dynamic that you're describing, and I think it's a little bit too early to sort of say, like, yay, we're back with super robust consumer deposit growth, partially because of your point actually about tax. I think you're right. That probably is contributing a little bit right now. At a high level, we talked about at company updates, our consumer deposit growth expectations being low to mid-single digits. I think that is still the belief, and I think we'll be a little bit more confident in that, as you say, once we get through tax season. Maybe we'll know a little bit more next quarter.

I will say that through the lens of net new checking accounts, where I think we said in the EPR that we did over 450,000 this quarter, that driver of sort of long-term consumer deposit franchise growth is in place. It just becomes a question of, at the margin, how yield-seeking flows develop, and what that does to kind of balance as per account, as we talked about at Company Update. It's the right question, something we're watching a little bit early, but unchanged expectations and some signs, as you point out, that the trends might be improving slightly. Just to complete the picture on the wholesale side, as you'll recall, last year was an exceptionally strong year for wholesale deposit growth. Our expectations for this year were a little bit more modest. Actually, the year's starting out pretty well.

Some of the typical year-end seasonal increases that we tend to see roll off have not quite rolled off to the extent that we would have expected. I'd still think the core view is for significantly less robust growth than last year. From a core franchise perspective, things feel pretty good there.

Thank you. Next, we will go to the line of Gerard Cassidy with RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open.

Hi, Jeremy. Hi, Jamie. Jeremy, obviously the first quarter, the expense levels were a little elevated relative to the full-year guide, if you annualize it out, of course. Can you give us some color that how you're going to bring down the following three quarters to be able to hit the year-end guide that you gave us at about $105 billion?

Yeah. I would somewhat discourage you from annualizing quarterly expense run rates because there's a lot of seasonality in the volume and revenue-related component of that as a function of the seasonality of the Markets revenue in particular. I think, in reality, as you well know, Gerard, that's kind of not how we manage the company. Meaning, I don't think you meant this, obviously, but the implication of your question is that, like, "Oh, the numbers are a bit high in the first quarter. Let's run around and find some expenses to cut in order to meet our guidance." That's kind of not how we do things. We just manage the expenses holistically kind of every day of the week.

At a high level, I think you're actually getting at something important, which is that when you consider the exceptionally strong performance of the Markets and Banking business this quarter, you actually might have otherwise expected us to revise up the full-year expense guidance. Because realistically, I think it's impossible to imagine that we would've budgeted the level of performance that we saw this quarter in Markets and Banking.

No, I'm saying some of it's expected to be quite good.

I hope every quarter's this good, and then our expense target would be love to spend more money because we did so well.

Okay. I still want to make my point, which is that, Gerard, I would discourage you from drawing the conclusion that for the purposes of the whole year, we are going to see the amount of implied internal offset between volume and revenue-related and other expenses that is implied in the failure to revise the guidance this quarter. It's just a little early in the year. Let's see how things play out in the next quarter or so.

If volumes and if every quarter was as good as this quarter, we will spend more than $105 for a very good reason.

The $105 is not a promise, it's an outcome of business results.

Which you've said in the past, Jamie, good expense growth. We all completely understand. As a follow-up question, on digital assets, stablecoin, on the continuum that we're on for adopting these types of new technologies, can you guys give us an update where you see this moving in terms of deposit impact possibly, but more importantly, payments? Obviously, you're a very large payments company, and how are you guys assessing it? Thank you.

Sure. There's so much to say on the stablecoin front. Obviously, there's a lot of legislative and regulatory stuff going on. I think, Gerard, your question is a little bit more about sort of long-term impact on the payments ecosystem. I guess through that lens, I would actually start with the wholesale business and talk about all of the innovation that we've done in sort of modernizing payments through Kinexys and the way that some of that is starting to play out and giving a lot of our customers kind of exciting new features like programmable money and different hours and the associated token as deposits and all that type of stuff. We're super excited to embrace this type of innovation and be part of it. The question a little bit is how does that relate to our existing franchise?

In the context of wholesale payments, I think it's just part of an overall product offering. I think sometimes people think that you're going to have some stablecoin thing that's going to radically disrupt the existing wholesale payments paradigm. I think that's not quite the right way to look at it, only because wholesale payments is already an incredibly efficient, extremely low-margin business with very sophisticated clients. It's not as if, a little bit to Jamie's earlier comment, it's not like there's one of these your margin is my opportunity type situation in wholesale payments. It's already a very modern, very technologically sophisticated, pretty low-margin business where we're constantly delivering innovation, including with some of these sort of new technologies.

On the consumer side, people talk about what is the consumer use case for stablecoin, and one version of it is digital cash, and there's all the obvious KYC implications of that. I think maybe that's where you get a little bit into the legislative and regulatory front where there's some new developments on that whole thing associated with this notion of to what extent is the payment of rewards a proxy for interest. That sort of turns it into, instead of stablecoin being an interesting form of innovation, it's just regulatory arbitrage so that you can run a bank without being subject to the important regulatory protections, both prudentially and for consumers in terms of KYC and stuff like that. We're eager to compete, we're eager to innovate. We're innovating all over the place. We definitely support the certainty that comes from this legislation.

As we get close to some form of finalization there, it's very important that the same product be regulated, same risk be regulated in the same way, and that it doesn't become the case that you just create a giant arbitrage backdoor for the prohibition on the payment of interest for stablecoins. We'll see how that plays out.

Thank you. Our next question comes from David Chiaverini with RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open.

Hi. Thanks. Actually with Jefferies, but thanks for taking the question. So wanted to follow up on-

Thank you. Thank you so much. Wanted to follow up on the consumer deposits. Interest-bearing deposit costs were down nicely in the quarter. Could you talk about the opportunity going forward in light of the changes in the forward curve?

JPMorgan Chase (JPM) Q1 2026 Earnings Call Transcript

Company Participants