저자: JamieDimon · 외국인
요약 보기
JP모건 CEO 제이미 다이먼은 미국 경기는 현재 견조하지만 지정학 리스크와 재정적자 확대가 큰 위험 요인이라고 진단했다. 기술 기업 IPO 시장은 열려 있고 현금흐름 중시 분위기이며, 스타트업 유치 경쟁을 위해 실리콘밸리 은행 고객 이탈분을 흡수하는 조직 강화를 진행 중이라고 밝혔다. AI는 실재하는 변화이며 트레이딩·리서치 등 전 프로세스에 적용될 것이고 일부 일자리는 대체되겠지만 생산성 향상 효과가 크다고 봤다. 악용 위험이 가장 큰 부정적 측면이다. 금리는 7%까지 오를 가능성도 대비해야 한다고 언급했으며, 인플레이션 압력(재정지출·원자재·녹색경제·무역 재편)이 남아 있다고 봤다. 최악 시나리오는 저성장·고금리의 스태그플레이션이다. 중국과의 관계가 미래 세계에 가장 중요하며, 우크라이나 전쟁 해결 전에는 중국과의 긍정적 전개를 기대하기 어렵다고 평가했다. 자본 규제 강화 제안에 대해 분산투자를 벌하는 방식 등 세부 내용이 부적절하다고 비판했다. 애플의 금융서비스 진출은 경쟁자이지만 실존적 위협은 아니라고 봤다. 개별 자산(삼성전자·엔비디아·비트코인 등)에 대한 가격 방향 예측 발언은 없었다.
다듬은 글
I'm here with JP Morgan CEO and chair Jamie Diamond in London on the sidelines of the tech Stars leadership Forum. → 저는 지금 런던에서 테크스타스 리더십 포럼 현장에서 JP모건의 CEO이자 회장인 제이미 다이먼과 함께하고 있습니다. 제이미, 오늘 함께해 주셔서 정말 감사합니다.
We just saw a few tech companies go public, Instacart, Arm, Klaviyo. What's happening in the markets? Are we back, or is this a blip? I think it's open for now, for different types of companies. IPO markets are like an accordion. In 2021 there were 400-plus deals, and in 2022 and this year something like 50 or 60. Interest rates change a lot, how people value companies, and when they want to go public. Cash flow, earnings and cash, count a little more than before. But for now the markets are open and healthy. The economy is still okay. It's open, maybe not for everybody, but it's open.
Given we're in London, you don't see the same wealth of tech companies that you see in Silicon Valley. Why haven't we seen that? Actually, I'd put it the other way around. The US was the center of tech, and not just Silicon Valley. It's all over America. I recently came from Boise and other places, and it's staggering. But the center of gravity has actually moved overseas too. I was recently in Berlin and Paris, and there are tech startups everywhere now. They're quite good, and they're more focused on going public. We're the leader in taking them public here, so I think that's a great thing. You've always had it in China, a little in India, and still not quite in Europe the way the United States has it. But the fact that it's happening here is a very good thing.
JP Morgan's tech footprint has gotten even bigger now that we've seen clients flood out of SVB. You bought First Republic. How big is the opportunity to become the new incumbent bank for startups and VCs, and how will you manage the risk differently? First of all, we didn't want to benefit from that kind of thing happening. It wasn't good for banks or for us. Having said that, when it happened, we had people working around the clock, literally, to open those accounts. I recently came from a Sequoia event. I know a lot of the venture capitalists, and our people were working Saturdays, Sundays, through the night, to onboard these accounts and help them through it. We always were there, and we always did okay, but I always wanted to do better. We're adding people.
The biggest difference is that Silicon Valley Bank did a great job on some things. Obviously there were certain things they did on a macro level that weren't right, but on the micro level they did a lot right: how they dealt with clients and serviced them locally. We have unbelievable products and services to bring them: digital, consumer, subscription lines, financing, global, research, you name it. But we have to deliver them in a way they actually like and want, which is what Silicon Valley Bank did. So we're organizing around it. If you speak to a bunch of people here, you'll hear them talk about it. We just took out a whole bunch of new space in Palo Alto, and we hired John Chen, one of the top people from Silicon Valley Bank. We're organized around the innovation economy. We'll get it right. I just want to make sure they're happy with us a year from now, not just today. That's what we do all day long.
On the risk side, it's incremental risk, a slightly different kind of risk. Years ago, the answer to lending to a non-revenue company was zero. But we did Facebook, so we've learned how to do that. Again, the risk isn't just the company itself. It's the venture capital firm, the venture capital partners, and then the companies they invest in. If those companies are managed well, that whole ecosystem works. We're organizing around it.
You've got a top-notch group investigating AI. What are they up to, and what's the next level of finance you think AI can unlock? The most important thing is that AI is real. We already have thousands of people doing it, top scientists from around the world, including Manuela Veloso, who ran Carnegie Mellon's machine learning department. It's a living, breathing thing. People want to know what it's going to do. It's going to keep changing, with different types of models and tools and technology. For us, the way to think about it is that every process, every app, every database, every trading, hedging, and research function, is going to apply AI. It might be a co-pilot, or it might replace humans. For example, AI is doing most of our equity hedging. It's idea generation, large language models, note-taking while you talk to someone. While it's taking notes, it may tell you that here's a point of interest the client might care about. Customer service too. It's a little bit of everything. And it will replace some jobs, of course.
But people have to take a deep breath. Technology has always replaced jobs. Your children will live to 100 without cancer because of technology, and they'll probably be working three and a half days a week. Technology has done unbelievable things for mankind. But planes crash, pharmaceuticals get misused, there are negatives. The biggest negative in my view is AI being used by bad people to do bad things, think cyber, think warfare. Eventually I think we'll have legal guardrails around it. That's hard to do because it's new, but it will add huge value. For JP Morgan, if it replaces jobs, we hope to redeploy people, like at First Republic. We offered jobs to about 90% of their people and they accepted. We also told them that some of those jobs are transitory, but we hire 30,000 people a year, so we expect to be able to get people a job somewhere local, in a different branch or a different function. We'll do that with any dislocation that results from AI.
I want the Jamie Diamond forecast on the broader economy. First it was hurricanes, and then in your annual letter it was storm clouds. What's the weather now? Is a recession coming? People have consistently gotten this wrong. I'm not giving a forecast. I blame myself. The US has been very strong for a while, no surprise. About $5 trillion was pumped in fiscally, three or four trillion from QE, and now that's being reversed. The consumer is still in good shape. They're still spending, and they have more money than before Covid. Home prices have gone up for 15 years, and asset prices too, so they're in pretty good shape. People talk about deterioration, but credit isn't deteriorating. Credit card balances are at all-time highs, but not adjusted for inflation, GDP, or income. We think it's normalizing, and corporate credit has been quite good. So the economy is strong here and now. All the data is a bit distorted because of Covid and things like that.
When you ask for a forecast, and I don't make forecasts, I look out and ask what the range of outcomes is, from hurricane to storm clouds. I'd say there are several storm clouds. When I said hurricane, I was correcting someone who said the storm clouds dissipate. I said no, that one may be a hurricane. We don't know what it is. Here's what I see: there are two things that are different from others. We always have to deal with the weather, and honestly, I don't spend a lot of time guessing about the economy. Sunny or rainy, I don't worry about that. We run the company to serve clients through thick and thin, to serve governments, to satisfy regulators. That's all weather. But there are two extraordinary things today that may have different outcomes, and you should think of them as storm clouds. We don't know if they'll hit, when they'll hit, or what they'll do. I'm not predicting, but I'll tell you what I worry about.
The first is fiscal. The money being spent is so big, the largest in peacetime ever in America and around the world, with already very high deficits. And quantitative tightening, which we've never had at this scale. Some people think QT will be uneventful. I'm not so sure. At a minimum, I expect volatile markets. And all the long-term fiscal things are inflationary: oil prices, certain commodity prices, the green economy, the restructuring of trade, you name it. I see them adding to inflation, not subtracting from it. So I don't think inflation will just keep coming down. It may not, and rates may therefore go higher. But the biggest storm cloud is geopolitical. It's Ukraine. The humanitarian crisis, a war not far from here, 600 miles long, with 500,000 people killed. It's nuclear blackmail. It will affect all global trade and the alliances between America and China. We don't know how it will start either. So those two things are what I keep a close eye on, and how they affect different economies.
What I've been telling people is to be prepared for higher rates and slower growth. When I said 5%, people asked if we were really going there. Yes, it's possible. When I talk to my board, I say it can go to 7%. The answer is yes. There are factors that would drive it higher than where it is today, four, four and a half, six, or 10-year bond rates. Are supply and demand pushing that? Yes. I'm just saying be prepared. The worst case is stagflation. Higher rates because you have a booming economy and lots of competition for capital is not the same thing as stagflation.
What are the ripple effects of 7% rates on businesses and on your growth? I'm not worried about JP Morgan. We're prepared. We can handle 7%. We can handle 2%, or 8%. Yes, we can handle that too. Risk management isn't the same as guessing the future. Risk management is looking at the range of potential outcomes and being able to say to yourself we can handle this, we can handle that, we don't really expect it, and we can handle the in-between. If you bet your company on one outcome, that's the problem. I think all companies do that. Every company has different exposures: input prices, output prices, some interest rates don't matter to some companies. For some it's the price of mozzarella. So every business is different. We don't know the effect of these things on the economy. We may get a soft landing, a mild recession, or a harder recession. There are obviously potential bad outcomes. The worst economically would be stagflation, low growth and high interest rates, and if that happens, you'll see a lot of people struggling.
Where's China on the list of risks? When I say geopolitical, that's the big one. It's the thread running from Ukraine through oil and gas, food, migration, and all our relationships. The most important one for the future of the world is China. Ukraine is affecting that. In fact, it's very hard to see really positive outcomes with China until the Ukraine war is resolved. Hopefully it can end with some sort of victory for Ukraine.
You said you're worried about another Trump presidency. How worried are you? I don't know if I've said that. I'm hoping the American public, we, we need good American leadership. We need to explain to people why this is so important for the world. There's a bit of "America first," and no American president is going to say "America second." But we need to explain why Ukraine is important to us, why American security relies on global security, and why our allies rely on that. If they can't rely on America, they'll have to rely on someone else. Bob Gates writes in his book, The Exercise of Power, about the symphony of power, all the soft things, not just the military, which we've overused: diplomacy, development, finance, education, communication, and economic trade and investment. I think we did a better job there, since we just avoided another US government shutdown. Now there's talk of a McCarthy ouster. Do you have a message for anyone in Congress? We need good policymakers. A shutdown is a bad idea. I'm grateful a solution was found. Democracies by their nature mean compromise. That's what a democracy is. When I go to Washington, you see the bad parts in the press all the time. But there are also great members of Congress and great senators who want to get things done in the interest of the United States. I'm glad they did this one. Forty-five days from now, Kevin McCarthy is the Speaker of the House. I wish him the best. I've known him for many years. He's got a tough hand, but he's doing okay so far.
Regulators have proposed new capital rules that banks say will make it tougher for Americans to get a mortgage. When you look across the firm, which businesses will have the biggest impact? Let's break it down. First, it's a hundred-page, thousand-page rule. You have to go by product, service, country, cross-border, and type. There's also an operational risk piece. I don't think it's all the right stuff. I don't think it's very comprehensive or well thought through, but let them do what they want at this point. And it's not international. You may not know this, but we have 30% more capital than European banks under the way it's currently constructed. What happened to the international requirements, the international level playing field? When you get into the specifics, the ultimate rules on mortgages, small business loans, and so on really matter. What I don't like about it, for example, is that it punishes diversification. Operational risk capital and diversification are one of the true free lunches for a bank, and it protects the bank. I don't understand why they do that. We'll respond, and hopefully it'll be modified and thoughtfully done for international purposes. Mostly, America has the best financial system the world has ever seen, including hedge funds, private equity, and private capital. Private equity and hedge funds are dancing in the streets, and this time they're being quite public about it, because this is going to push a lot of activity out of the banking system. If that's what regulators want, so be it. Is that good for America? I don't know. We've gone from 7,300 public companies in 1996 to 4,500 today. Is that what we wanted? It should have been 14,000. Did you want a lot of credit to move to private markets? Maybe they did, and then they've accomplished their goals.
The biggest tech companies prop up a huge chunk of the S&P. Is Big Tech too big to fail? That's too broad a question. In any industry, you can say "too big to fail," but I've lost touch with whether that really means anything anymore. Remember, car companies were bailed out, and these things were bailed out. If regulators don't want a bank to ever fail again, then we should do A, B, C, and D. I didn't think that was the goal. I think Dodd-Frank actually accomplished most of its goals: dramatically reducing risk and creating liquidity and capital. With Big Tech you have to be very specific. Sometimes companies misuse their position, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes regulators get captured, and sometimes they don't. But they're powerful, and we have to deal with them. I've been writing about how Big Tech is coming into our business. We have fintech, but we also have Big Tech. They'll embed payment systems, and someone is going to white-label banking, kind of like what Apple did. They have the right to do that. I'm not against it. I would be against unfair use of their position to dominate us in a business.
Apple is going deeper into financial services. Do you worry about "the Bank of Apple"? I wrote about it five years ago. What is a bank? We're going to compete. They're a tough competitor. They hold money and move money. You can put money into basically markets, and they can white-label a checking account or a credit card. Yes, they're a form of competitor. We also partner with them. I'm used to partnering and competing with lots of people. It's not an existential threat. I think it's a potential threat, but if we were complacent about it, yes. Jamie Diamond, we're here to talk about tech. I'll see you on stage. Jamie Diamond, chair and CEO of JP Morgan. Thank you.
Comments 0