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 4th Quarter 2024 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 Chief Financial Officer, Jeremy Barnum. Mr.

Thank you and good morning everyone. Starting on page 1, the firm reported net income of $14,000,000,000 EPS of $4.81 on revenue of $43,700,000,000 with an ROGCE of 21%. On page 2, we have more on our 4th quarter results. The firm reported revenue of $43,700,000,000 up $3,800,000,000 or 10% year on year. NII ex Markets was down $548,000,000 or 2% driven by the impact of lower rates and the associated deposit margin compression as well as lower deposit balances in CCB largely offset by the impact of securities reinvestment, higher revolving balances in card and higher wholesale deposit balances.

NIRxMarkets was up $3,100,000,000 or 30%. Excluding the prior year's net investment securities losses, it was up 21% largely on higher asset management fees and investment banking fees. And markets revenue was up $1,200,000,000 or 21%. Expenses of $22,800,000,000 were down $1,700,000,000 or 7% year on year. Excluding the prior year's FDIC special assessment, expenses were up $1,200,000,000 or 5 percent predominantly driven by compensation as well as higher brokerage and distribution fees.

And credit costs were $2,600,000,000 reflecting net charge offs of $2,400,000,000 and a net reserve of $267,000,000 On page 3, you can see the reported results for the full year. I'll remind you that there were a number of significant items in 2024. Excluding those items, the firm reported net income of $54,000,000,000 EPS of $18.22 revenue of $173,000,000,000 and we delivered an RoTCE of 20%. Touching on a couple of highlights for the year. In CCB, we had record number of first time investors and acquired nearly 10,000,000 new card accounts.

In CIB, we had record revenue in Markets, Payments and Security Services. And in AWM, we had record long term net inflows of $234,000,000,000 positive across all channels, regions and asset classes. Onto balance sheet and capital on page 4. We ended the quarter with a CET1 ratio of 15.7 percent, up 40 basis points versus the prior quarter as net income and lower RWA were largely offset by both OCI losses and capital distributions, which included $4,000,000,000 of net common share repurchases this quarter. The $24,000,000,000 decrease in RWA reflects a seasonal decline in markets activity and lower wholesale lending, which was predominantly offset by a seasonal increase in card.

Now let's go to our businesses starting with CCB on page 5. CCB reported net income of $4,500,000,000 on revenue of $18,400,000,000 which was up 1% year on year. In Banking and Wealth Management, revenue was down 7% year on year on deposit margin compression and lower deposits, partially offset by growth in Wealth Management revenue. Average deposits were down 4% year on year and flat sequentially as consumer balances have stabilized. Client investment assets were up 14% year on year predominantly driven by market performance and we continue to see healthy flows across branch and digital channels.

In home lending, revenue was up 12% year on year, predominantly driven by higher production revenue. Turning to card services and auto. Revenue was up 14% year on year, largely driven by card NII on higher withholding balances. Card outstandings were up 11% due to strong account acquisition and revolver growth. And in auto, originations were $10,600,000,000 up 7%, reflecting higher lease volume on robust new vehicle inventory.

Expenses of $9,700,000,000 were up 4% year on year, predominantly driven by field compensation and growth in technology. In terms of credit performance this quarter, credit costs were $2,600,000,000 reflecting net charge offs of $2,100,000,000 up $428,000,000 year on year driven by card. The net reserve build was $557,000,000 predominantly driven by higher card revolving balances. Next, the Commercial and Investment Bank on page 6. CIB reported net income of $6,600,000,000 on revenue of $17,600,000,000 9% year on year and we ranked number 1 with wallet share of 9.3 percent for 2024.

Advisory fees were up 41% benefiting from large deals and share growth in a number of key sectors. Underwriting fees were up meaningfully with debt up 56% and equity up 54%, primarily driven by favorable market conditions. In terms of the outlook for the overall investment banking wallet, in light of the positive momentum, we remain optimistic about our pipeline. Payments revenue was $4,700,000,000 up 3% year on year excluding equity investments driven by higher deposit balances and fee growth largely offset by deposit margin compression. Lending revenue was $1,900,000,000 up 9% year on year, predominantly driven by lower losses on hedges.

Moving to markets, total revenue was $7,000,000,000 up 21% year on year. Fixed income was up 20% with better performance in credit as well as continued outperformance in currencies and emerging markets. Equities was up 22% on elevated client activity and derivatives amid increased volatility and higher trading volumes and cash. Security Services revenue was $1,300,000,000 up 10% year on year driven by fee growth on higher client activity and market levels as well as higher deposit balances. Expenses of $8,700,000,000 were up 7% year on year predominantly driven by higher brokerage, technology and legal expense.

Average banking and payments loans were down 2% year on year and down 1% sequentially. Global Corporate and Investment Banking loans were down 2% quarter on quarter, driven by paydowns and lower short term financing, primarily offset by new originations. In Commercial Banking, middle market loans were also down 2%, driven by paydowns predominantly offset by new originations. And commercial real estate loans were flat as new originations were offset by paydowns. Average client deposits were up 9% year on year and 5% sequentially driven by underlying client growth.

Finally, credit costs were $61,000,000 driven by net downgrade activity and the net impact of charge offs offset largely offset by a reserve release due to an update to certain loss assumptions. Then to complete our lines of business, Asset and Wealth Management on page 7. AWM reported net income of $1,500,000,000 with pre tax margin of 35%. Revenue of $5,800,000,000 was up 13% year on year, predominantly driven by growth in management fees on higher average market levels and strong net inflows as well as higher performance fees. Expenses of $3,800,000,000 were up 11% year on year, predominantly 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 $76,000,000,000 for the quarter, positive across all asset classes. In liquidity, we saw net inflows of $94,000,000,000 for the quarter $104,000,000,000 for the full year $140,000,000,000 for the full year, sorry. And we had client asset net inflows of $468,000,000,000 for the year. AUM of $4,000,000,000,000 and client assets of $5,900,000,000,000 were both up 18% year on year driven by continued net inflows and higher market levels. And finally, loans were up 2% quarter on quarter and deposits were up 5% quarter on quarter.

Turning to corporate on page 8. Corporate reported net income of $1,300,000,000 dollars Revenue of $2,000,000,000 was up $223,000,000 year on year. NII of $2,000,000,000 was down $415,000,000 year on year, driven by the impact of lower rates, largely offset by balance sheet actions, primarily securities reinvestment activity. NIR was a net loss of $30,000,000 compared to the net loss of $668,000,000 in the prior year driven by lower net investment securities losses this quarter. And expenses of $550,000,000 were down $3,000,000,000 year on year predominantly driven by the absence of the FDIC special assessment of $2,900,000,000 in the prior year.

With that, let's pivot to the outlook starting with NII on Page 9. We expect 2025 NII ex markets to be approximately $90,000,000,000 Going through the drivers, as usual, the outlook assumes that rates follow the forward curve. It's worth noting that the NII decrease is driven by both the cut expected in 2025 and the impact of the 100 basis points of cuts in the back half of twenty twenty four. You can see on the page that we've illustrated the historical trajectory of card loan growth. We expect healthy card loan growth again this year, but below the 12% pace we saw in 2024 as tailwinds from revolve normalization are largely behind us.

Turning to deposits. Firm wide deposits have stabilized and we expect to see a more visible growth trend assert itself in the second half of twenty twenty five. It's notable that we can already see that trend in consumer checking deposits. On deposit margin, we expect modest compression due to lower rates. When you put all that together, we expect the NII trough could be sometime in the middle of the year followed by growth as we illustrated at the bottom of the bar.

For completeness, we expect firm wide NII to be approximately $94,000,000,000 as a function of markets NII increasing to about $4,000,000,000 which you should think of as being primarily offset in NIR. Finally, I want to point out that starting this quarter, we are including an estimate of earnings at risk in the earnings supplement, so you no longer have to wait for the K or the Q to get that number. Now let's turn to expenses on Page 10. We expect 2025 expense to be about $95,000,000,000 Looking at the chart in the middle of the page, I'll touch on the drivers of the year on year change, which you'll note are very consistent with what you've been hearing from us recently. The largest increase is volume and revenue related expense, which is primarily driven by expected growth in auto leasing as well as capital markets.

As a reminder, this comes with higher revenues. We continue to hire bankers and advisors to support business growth as well as expand our branch network. The increase in tech spend is primarily business driven as we continue to invest in new products, features and customer platforms as well as modernization. Marketing remains a driver of spend as we continue to see attractive opportunities resulting in strong demand and engagement in our card business. And finally, while we haven't explicitly called it out in each bar, inflation remains a source of some upward pressure.

And as always, we are generating efficiencies to help offset it. Now let's turn to Page 11 to cover credit and wrap up. On credit, we expect the 2025 card net charge off rate to be in line with our previous guidance of approximately 3.6%. So in closing, 2024 was another year of record revenue and net income and we're proud of what we accomplished. As we look ahead to 2025, we still expect NII normalization, although to a lesser extent than we previously thought.

And taking a step back, we think it's important to acknowledge the tension in the risks and uncertainties in the environment and the degree of optimism embedded in asset prices and expectations. In that context, we remain upbeat about the strength of the franchise, but we are focused on being prepared for a wide range of scenarios. Finally, let me say a few words about the wildfires in Los Angeles. While we don't expect much of a financial impact from it, we have a presence in the area across all three lines of business, so we're keeping in close contact with our customers, clients and employees. We are offering support in a variety of ways, including waiving consumer and business banking fees as well as making a contribution to local relief organizations, offering employee donation matching and supporting employee volunteer efforts.

With that, I'll turn it over to Jamie before we open up the line for Q and A.

Good morning, everybody. I just want to point out that Daniel Pinto is not leaving the company yet. So it's premature. I'm about to do it. I just want to say I'd be remiss not to say that here's a young man who joined the company at 20 years old in Argentina.

He ran trading in Argentina, then he ran trading for Latin America, then he ran global emerging markets trading, then he ran fixed income trading and then became co head of the Investment Bank and then sole head of the Investment Bank for 10 years. Over that whole time, helping build one of the great investment banks in the world. And so and then obviously, he was President for 5 years or more, a great partner of mine, trusted by everyone at the company. So we're thrilled to have his skills and talents going forward, but I just wanted to recognize the contributions he made.

Great. All right. So let's go to questions.

Thank you. Please stand by. Our first question comes from John McDonald with Truist Securities. You may proceed.

Hi, good morning. Jeremy, I wanted to ask about capital and I know you get this question a lot about the kind of high class dilemma of your growing capital base and your perspective of that is earnings in store. So I guess what's the framework for thinking about the opportunity cost of sitting on the growing base of capital and how high you might let that go versus your patience in waiting for more attractive deployment opportunities?

Yes. Good question, John, and welcome back by the way.

I read your team the other day. It took me quite a while, but it was good work.

So, yes, you've noted all the points that we always make, so I won't repeat them. And I think the way we're thinking about it right now is that we feel very comfortable with the notion that it makes sense for us to have a nice store of extra capital in light of the current environment. We believe there's a good chance that there will be a moment where we get to deploy it at better levels essentially in whatever way than the current opportunities would suggest. And so that feels like a correct kind of strategic and financial decision for us.

Having said that, having studied it quite extensively over the last 6 months and have all these debates that you would expect, we've concluded that we do have enough. We have enough access. And given that, we would like to not have the access grow from here. So when you think about the implications of that given the amount of organic capital generation that we're producing, it means that unless we find in the near term opportunities for organic deployment or otherwise, it means more capital return through buybacks all else being equal in order to arrest the growth of the excess. And that is our current plan.

Although I'll give the caveat that as you know is in our disclosure, which is we don't want to get into the business of guiding on buybacks and we reserve the right to change the trajectory at any time for any reason, but that is our current thinking.

Okay. Thanks, Jeremy. And then just as a follow-up, we think about the investment spend agenda this year, how does it differ from say last year or last couple of years across lines of business and this kind of certainty of return spectrum you've talked about? And then what kind of efficiencies are baked into the outlook as well? Thanks.

Sure. I mean, the truth is and I guess this is a good thing that the themes are remarkably consistent. So we are seeing the results of our kind of high certainty investment choices across all the categories that you know very well and that we highlighted on the outlook page for expenses and those continue to be the main areas of focus. The execution gets tweaked at the margin as we pursue different opportunities. In the Commercial and Investment Bank.

We continue drilling down and analyzing into the relative pockets of weakness that you might see if you go a level or 2 below the very significant significantly strong share positions that you see on an aggregate level. Daniel always talked about the reds and the ambers that are behind the greens and that's embedded in the culture of the company. So we do that everywhere and continue analyzing and iterating and we throw resources against that stuff as we do that. But broadly the themes are very consistent. I think in terms of efficiency a couple of things to say which you know well.

One is when we think about efficiency and how we've generated at this company, it's organic, it's BAU, it's evergreen, it happens every day in all the teams everywhere. And so that is sort of part of the bottoms up culture and that remains the case. We do have a few top down areas of focus. I think if I go for example into technology for starters, we're putting a lot of effort into improving the sort of ability of our software engineers to be productive as they do development and there's been a lot of focus on that the development environment for them in order to enable them to be more productive. So all else equal, that generates a little bit of efficiency.

We also have a lot of focus on the efficiency of our hardware utilization. And so that's embedded in there as well. And another thing that's worth noting, you'll recall that at Investor Day, I talked about how we had probably reached peak modernization spend. As Jamie always says, we're always modernizing. So the fact that we've gotten to a peak and that it might come down a little bit from here still means we're going to be constantly modernizing.

But at the margin that means that inside the tech teams there's a little bit of capacity that gets freed up to focus on features and new product development and so on, which is also in some sense a form of efficiency. Finally though, what I would say is that, if you look at the headcount trajectory of the company over the last few years, we have grown a lot. And it's been for very good reasons and it has contributed quite a bit to our growth and to our ability to run the company efficiently. But any time you have that quantum of headcount growth as well as that rate of headcount growth, you have to believe all else equal that some amount of inefficiency has been introduced. And so this year as we went through the budget cycle, we asked people at the margin to try to support the growth of the company while living within their means on the headcount front.

So we're going to try to run things with some important exceptions that I'll highlight in a second on roughly flat headcount and how that lead to people generating internal efficiencies as they get creative with their teams and we consider more efficient exceptions are the ongoing areas of high certainty investment and growth, so obviously branches and bankers and so on. And also critical non negotiable areas of risk and control like cyber or whatever independent risk management needs to ensure that we're running the company safely. So that's how we're thinking about efficiency in the current moment.

Thank you. Next we will go to the line of Mike Mayo from Wells Fargo Securities. You may proceed.

Hi. Simple and then more difficult, I guess. Jamie, who's your successor? And then the second question is, I know I asked the question at Investor Day. Why not stay as CEO a little bit longer?

I think what I'm hearing from investors now it goes up and down, but I think investors would like you to stay. So why say you're going to stay less than 5 years? You're finally getting what you wanted, 15 years of your spaghetti chart about the regulatory structure and the unpredictability of capital requirements and the regulatory costs and it seems like you're finally getting what you've been playing for. So, why not stay around a bit longer if investors want you to do so? And what would you do otherwise anyway?

You don't play golf. You aren't going to be Treasury Secretary. Seems like your work is your hobby, right? So, how much longer would you stay around?

I do love what I do and answering the second question first. Look, we're on a path. The path is not just about me. It's about the other senior people, the company, it's about the Board. If I'm here for several more years and I may or may not be Chairman of that, it's going to be up

really fit the new CEO and stuff like that. Now you're talking potentially 4, 5 years or more, I'm 60 I'll be 69 in March. I think it's the rational thing to do. I've had a couple of health problems you know. I just think it makes a lot of sense.

And so and what was your first question at the end?

Yes. I mean, this is unfortunate thing for any big company like this where these people have to be in the spotlight all the time and all the toing and froing. We have several exceptional people. You guys know most of them.

There's maybe 1 or 2 you don't know. The Board reviews and meets with them all the time. I think it's wonderful that Jim Piecyk, who does not want to be the CEO, will be here as Chief Operating Officer and stay after that. So obviously, she's willing to work with those people, which I think is great for a company, just having continuity of management and leadership and it'll be one of those people. And obviously, we're not going to tell the press, but it's not determined yet.

And of course, at the last minute, a couple of years from now, people get sick, they change their mind, they have family circumstances. So even if you thought you knew today, you could be completely sure.

stay around maybe for a few more years base case right now?

Thank you. Our next question comes from Jim Mitchell with Seaport Global Securities. You may proceed.

Hey, good morning. Maybe just on regulation, we have a new administration coming in. We have a new soon to be, I guess, a new Head of Regulation at the Fed. So maybe just talk about, again, what areas of the regulatory structure, if it were to change, would be most impactful for you? And is there any areas where you think capital requirements could actually go down?

Or is this more of a story of requirements just simply stop going up? Thanks.

Hey, Jim. I mean, it's obviously something we're thinking about a lot. But I could go down some pretty deep rabbit hole speculating on all the different parts of the framework and how they could evolve. And I just don't really think that's productive right now. But let me make some time to answer your attempt

second, you read Jamie's quotes, they're very consistent with what we've been saying as a company for a long time, which is that all we want is a coherent, rational, holistically assessed regulatory framework that allows banks to do their job supporting the economy that isn't reflexively anti bank. It doesn't default to the answer to every question being more of everything, more capital, more liquidity, that uses data and it balances the obvious goal that we all share of the safe and sound banking system with actually recognizing that banks play a critical role in supporting growth. And the hope is that we get some of that. And that also while we're at it, some aspects of the supervisory framework get a little bit less bureaucratic and a little bit less adversarial and a little bit more substantive, so that at the margin, management can focus its time on the things that matter the most. So whether capital goes up, down, stays flat is really so complicated because it's not just puzzle 3: Endgame, it's also G SIB, it's also a number of other factors and that's why we keep hammering away on the importance of doing all of this holistically, properly with the right analysis and if that takes time so be

Great. Jeremy gave it all. Just add 3 quick things. Liquidity is also equally important. There's been a lot of recognition that what counts for liquidity and discount windows and how else here are done, I think is very important.

2nd is competition. All these things should be done in light of looking at what kind of public markets you want, what kind of private markets you want, what do you want in the banking system, what do you want out of the banking system. And the third is, I think most people realize there is a huge need to take a step back and look at the Byzantine bulk and IS system we built, which has negatives and even the regulators tell you that. So at one point, just take a deep breath. As Jeremy said, do the right thing and continue to have the best financial system in the world.

Yes. That makes sense. And maybe just as a follow-up, just on loan growth, have you since the election, it seems like CEO confidence, business confidence has increased. So are you starting to see any improvement in demand on lending? Just any thoughts there would be great.

Yes. It's a good question. And I think given the significant improvement in business sentiment and the general optimism out there, you might have expected to see some big open loan growth. We are not really seeing that. I don't particularly think that's a negative.

I think it's probably explained by a combination of wide open capital markets. And so many of the larger corporates accessing the capital markets and healthy balance sheets and small businesses and maybe some residual caution. And maybe there are some pockets in some industries where some aspects of the policy uncertainty that we might be facing are making them a little bit more cautious than they otherwise would be about what they're executing in the near term. But we'll see what the New Year brings as the current optimism starts getting tested with reality one way or the other and maybe if it materializes with tangible improvements and things one way or the other, you'll actually see that come through C and I loan growth in particular.

Thank you. Next, we will go to the line of Erika Najarian from UBS. Your line is open.

questions on capital and maybe ask about some of, Jeremy, the crosscurrents in terms of the denominator. So if we look at the Q3 regulatory data for your GSIB surcharge score, that would imply that your score would put you in a range of a 5% G SIB. So obviously, from what we understand, if you print that somewhere near that score at the end of this year, then your G SIB surcharge goes up by to 5% or by 50 basis points 2 years and one day from now. At the same time, around the holidays, we did get the press release from both the Federal Reserve and the lawsuit from the banks. In terms of the transparency, it looks like the transparency is going to be focused on perhaps being improved as soon as this year's stress test.

So as we think about the definition of excess, right, because part of this is like 15.7 is clearly a huge number. So as we think about your returns going forward, the definition of excess also continues to shift. So how should we think about those crosscurrents in terms of 2 big components clearly, one is your GSIB surcharge and the other is your stress capital buffer?

Right, Erika. Okay. You are tempting me with many rabbit holes that are very deep. But let's try to address this not at too much great length. First of all, G SIB.

So yes, it was a high print in the Q3, but we had normal seasonality Q3 and Q4. So while our current view of the G SIB number is an estimate, we're quite confident that we wound up comfortably in the 5% bucket just as a result of normal seasonality. It was actually a relatively quiet December in terms of the types of year end things that sometimes create pressures in various types. So that is more or less what you might otherwise expected in terms of our typical seasonal pattern, so not much to see there. And the obvious point also being that even under the existing proposed GISA rule, which is obviously a little bit hung up, with the smaller buckets and some recalibration and so on.

It's not even sort of obvious that it would have mattered one way or the other. But anyway, for now, we're managing to the current rules and normal seasonality took us back under 5. Okay. You mentioned the lawsuit. I think the only thing to say about that is that we are happy to see the clear recognition on the part of the Fed that many of the things that we have been talking about for a long time in terms of transparency and volatility and some of the non substantive bureaucratic burden associated with the CCAR process needs improvement.

So that's great. I think I won't speak for the industry bodies that were the actual litigants, but it seems to me if you just read what they said publicly in their press releases, this is as much as anything about preserving rights in light of the statute of limitations deadlines that were coming up. So let's just hope that we see some significant progress on that front. And then taking a step back at a high level what you're really asking me is what is our core view about and I think probably the best way to think about this is just through the lens of the numerator actually. What is our core view about if you just for the sake of argument and assume modest growth in the normalized amount of economic denominator like actual need for capital organically, what will be the likely additional numerator that will be needed or not as a function of the environment?

way we're increasingly thinking about that is just doing different scenario analysis of like flat numerator, up 5 numerator, up 10 numerator, up 20 numerator. I guess there could be some versions of the world where the numerator is a little less. And then guessing about our central case and comparing our projected capital amount to that number to determine the excess. As you point out at 15.7 and I think the actual quantum in the numerator is something like 275,000,000,000 dollars through pretty much any reasonable lens, it's a ton of access, which is why we've concluded that it doesn't need to grow anymore.

And just a follow-up question, follow-up to John's line of questioning. As a placeholder, as we think about what you said trying to arrest the growth of CET1, for now, should we just assume that anything that you don't need for organic growth and your dividend obligations in terms of that $15,700,000 we bought back by the company as we think about? I know you don't want to predict the buyback, but is that sort of just a placeholder for now as we think about what can return back to shareholders in the form of repurchase?

Yes. I mean you've quoted our capital hierarchy and your conclusion flows naturally from my statement that we do want to arrest the growth of the excess.

But we are never going to tell the market what we're going to do. I mean you all know that everybody's out there modeling these things, trading against these things. So steady consistent buyers in the marketplace were so predictable are making a mistake.

All right, guys. We can go to the next question. Thanks.

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

Good morning. It seems like you guys have backed off the view that you're materially over earning on net interest income. And is this all because of the higher rate environment that's expected now? Or is it also partly a different view on deposit pricing specifically in the consumer side, which I think you had assumed it would reprice a bit more than we've seen?

Yes. It's a good question, Matt. I guess maybe let me try to frame that from a couple different perspective. So on the one hand, you're right. If you look at the NII guidance that we're giving you, including the notion that subject to the yield curve planning out in line with the current forwards, which as we know is the one thing that we know won't happen.

But if you want to assume something, if you assume the forwards, we're sort of telling you that we might return to sequential growth in the back half of the year, again, based on all of our current assumptions, all else being equal. And you could draw the conclusion that that means that the over earning narrative is no longer applicable. I think if you take a big step back by historical standards, the difference between the policy rate and the weighted average rate paid on consumer deposits remains quite elevated. For a variety of reasons and subject to the fact that in the end deposit pricing is always going to be a response to the competitive environment that we experience in the field. The current structure of the yield curve is such that for the time being anyway, when we do the math, that's what we see.

Do we think that's truly, truly, truly sustainable through the cycle? Unclear. But I guess, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. For now, this is the outlook for the coming year.

We've gotten closer to normalized NII and normalized credit.

Yes. It is worth noting that NII ex market is down year on year. So there's some amount of normalization.

JPMorgan Chase (JPM) Q4 2024 Earnings Call Transcript

Company Participants