저자: CNBC-TV18 · 외국인
다듬은 글
인도에 다시 오게 되어 정말 기쁩니다. 팬데믹 이후 첫 방문인데, 저는 2005년부터 인도에 와 왔습니다. 그동안 인도 직원은 6,000명에서 6만 명으로 늘었습니다. 이제 콜센터 수준이 아니라 기술, 분석, 사이버 보안까지 전 분야를 다루고 있고, 내일은 1만 명이 일하는 뭄바이 신규 센터에 갑니다. 8~9년 전만 해도 고객이 50~75곳이었는데, 지금은 전 세계 투자자 700명이 모인 이 컨퍼런스에 100개 기업이 발표를 할 만큼 달라졌습니다. 인도에 대한 낙관론은 완전히 정당하다고 봅니다.
지금 인도 낙관론을 이끄는 요인은 두세 가지입니다. 모디 총리가 잘해 오고 있고, 아드하르 같은 제도로 70만 명이 은행 계좌를 열었으며, 세금을 단순화하고 외국인 직접투자를 더 열려는 노력도 이어지고 있습니다. 여기 있는 건 JP모건만이 아닙니다. 액센추어, 맥킨지 같은 곳도 많은 사람을 두고 있고, 타타 같은 현지 기업도 있죠. 이것이 중국과의 갈등 때문만은 아닙니다. 물론 중국 문제로 생긴 기회도 있지만, 이런 낙관론은 원래도 있었을 겁니다.
그렇다면 이 기회가 JP모건의 인도 계획에 어떤 의미일까요? 앞으로도 지금과 같은 방향일 겁니다. 기업금융, 투자은행, 사이버 사업을 키우는 것이죠. 예전에는 여기서 10~20개 기업을 커버하고 리서치를 했지만, 이제는 150곳 이상을 다룹니다. 예전에는 인도에 들어오는 다국적기업 20~30곳과 거래했지만, 이제는 500곳가량을 돕고 있습니다. 또 런던, 싱가포르, 미국에 있는 인도 기업들의 자금 조달과 인수합병도 돕고 있습니다. 앞으로 20년 동안 지금 규모가 다시 두 배로 커질 거라고 짐작합니다.
채권지수 편입에 대해 짧게 더 묻겠습니다. 편입으로 향후 1년 반 동안 인도에 250억~400억 달러가 들어올 거라는 추정이 있는데, 과거에 다른 나라가 채권지수에 편입됐을 때는 중장기적으로 어떤 영향이 있었습니까? 우리 쪽에서는 250억 달러 정도로 보고 있습니다. 시간이 지나면서 조금씩 매수되는 구조죠. 이런 지수 편입은 그 나라 자본시장, 법치, 투명성, 정부 자금 조달에 대한 신뢰를 보여 준다는 점에서 좋은 일입니다. 간접 효과가 더 중요하다고 봅니다. 우리가 원하는 건 공장과 주식, 혁신 기업에 들어오는 외국인 직접투자입니다. 이것도 아주 긍정적인 신호 중 하나입니다.
신호 이야기가 나왔으니, 중국에 대한 핵심 판단을 묻겠습니다. 5월에 중국에 가셨을 때 중국 전망을 신중하게 보신다고 했는데, 지금 위험과 보상을 따져 보면 중국을 어떻게 보십니까? 부동산 부문의 붕괴는 이제 끝났다고 보십니까, 아니면 아직 멀었다고 보십니까?
제가 보기에는 훨씬 중요한 건 우크라이나 전쟁입니다. 석유, 가스, 식량, 이주 문제 등 전 세계 관계에 영향을 주고 있고, 특히 미국과 중국의 관계에 큰 영향을 주고 있습니다. 미국은 이 문제를 아주 심각하게 받아들이고 있지만, 나머지 세계가 그렇게 보는지는 잘 모르겠습니다. 유럽의 민주국가가 핵 협박 속에 침공을 당했는데, 대응이 좋았다고는 해도 이 전쟁이 해결되기 전까지는 모든 관계에 영향을 줄 겁니다. 인도는 국가안보에 대해 우선순위를 분명히 밝혔고, 독자적인 길을 가고 있습니다. 저희는 여전히 여기 있고, 외교 정책은 JP모건이 아니라 정부가 정하는 일입니다. 저는 미국인으로서 미국인들이 중국을 10피트짜리 거인처럼 여기는 생각을 그만둬야 한다고 생각합니다. 중국의 GDP는 약 80,000... (이하 영상 1부 끝 부분에서 말이 끊깁니다)
We have all the foodborne energy we need, we've got the unbelievable benefits of free enterprise and freedom. They're going to have their own issues, and I'm not making fun of them. They even have their own issues about demographics, energy, climate, etc. I like the fact that the Americans are engaging them now—Cody Blinken, Janet Yellen, Jake Sullivan.
원문 자막이 영어 음성인식 결과라 아래는 영어 원문을 자연스럽게 정리한 것입니다.
We have all the energy we need, and we've got the unbelievable benefits of free enterprise and freedom. They're going to have their own issues, and I'm not making fun of them. They even have their own issues about demographics, energy, climate, and so on. I like the fact that Americans are engaging with them now—Antony Blinken, Janet Yellen, Jake Sullivan. There are legitimate concerns around national security and unfair trade. I hope they resolve them. We don't have to be hostile about it. There are going to be changes, and it is definitely not over yet. So more engagement is what you'd like to see. I understand it's going to cause more friction, but it won't be an unraveling. I think it'll just be a change that flows over time in certain trade and investment matters.
And it's not just America. Every country is going to be looking at its own position: what is national security? Do I have the energy I need? Do I need semiconductors from China? Where do I get my rare earths from? Ukraine woke everyone up to that, and that's a permanent state of affairs. The pandemic started to wake everybody up, and then Ukraine accelerated that wake-up call.
What are the long-term implications of what you're seeing play out as foreign policy changes and national security weighs on economic and government decisions? The U.S. is rolling out the CHIPS Act, for instance. India is trying to partner with the U.S. to ensure we have a partnership as far as chips are concerned. How do you see this impacting flows, and globalization moving forward?
I think it's just going to change it. People say "decoupling," but there's still globalization. Nations are going to have companies, and nations are going to make determinations that change those flows. That creates huge opportunity, I think, for India—for services and certain manufacturing. And it creates risk. So I'm hoping political leaders sit down, have these conversations, and make these changes in a way that isn't completely disruptive, but is outweighed by the risk of war and nuclear proliferation. We have to be very cautious about it, but it's an opportunity for India, and hopefully you'll seize it.
I also think it's affecting global relationships. Indian-American relations are natural partnerships. You're between Russia and China, so you have to be somewhat non-aligned, but we're your best friend. Anyone who doesn't think that through hasn't thought carefully. There's been a lot of back and forth between President Biden and Prime Minister Modi, and I'm thrilled they're having those conversations. I think we've got to do a better job on the trade and investment side, not just the labor side.
When you say a better job on the trade and investment side, what do you mean?
We should sit down with India and negotiate better trade and investment relationships to open up more markets on both sides. India can let some more competition in, and we can bring in more capital. I remember telling some Indians, after some of those negotiations, that it's really great, but what about trade?
Since you were talking about trade, let's talk about what's happening in the U.S. I was having a conversation with someone who said he doesn't believe "higher for longer" is necessarily anti-growth, because it fundamentally underlines the resilience the economy seems to have. But you've been cautioning everybody not to just focus on today, but to worry about tomorrow. So what does tomorrow look like? I agree with Larry, but he is also quite concerned about it.
If you have higher for longer but also good growth and contained inflation, that's good. It just means more competition for capital and people paying up for capital—and the world needs it. It needs it for remilitarization, the green economy, the IRA, the CHIPS Act, huge deficit spending. But we need growth. If you actually get stagflation, that's not so good. Right now, it feels good. The fiscal stimulation was extraordinary, the monetization was extraordinary. That was a global phenomenon, more in the United States and elsewhere, but there's a bit of a sugar high, and that's going to go away somewhat. We're hoping for a soft landing, but there are all these other things: QT, Ukraine, oil and gas this winter, disruption of trade flows. Good leadership from America, India, China, and Europe can make sure the negatives don't happen. But I'm putting myself in the cautious category.
You just talked about spending. I remember you said we've been spending like drunken sailors. As the party starts to wind down, tightening happens, and interest rates stay higher, what do you believe are the likely adverse shocks the world will have to deal with? Of course the big one is debt burden. Large continents like Africa are dealing with that at this point. What will it mean for things like climate transition and many other SDG goals?
We've got to not get confused about various goals. Unbelievable debt financing and high levels of debt around the world—we don't know the effect of that. These deficits, other than war, are as high as they've ever been, and we already have the highest debt level. I put government spending in the "little sugar high" category. Governments can't just keep spending more and more money. I don't think it's necessarily inflationary, but I don't know the effects. Like I said, we can have higher rates and a slowdown, but inflation coming down with good growth—I think that's less likely. People should be prepared for higher oil and gas prices and higher rates, just as a matter of preparedness. You and I can guess what it's going to be, but no one knows. I think the odds are higher than that. Hopefully we'll get past it, but I think the geopolitical situation is what concerns me most, and we don't know its effect on the economy. The humanitarian part is far more important. It's also very important for the future of the free democratic world. We may be at an inflection point for the free democratic world—that's how seriously I take it.
So: geopolitics, inflation, deficits, recessions—and we haven't really seen something like this since World War II.
Yes. We don't have a playbook for this. There is no playbook. We don't know the intended and unintended consequences of this.
Let's talk about the banking sector. We hope the worst is behind us at this point. You're not particularly happy with the way regulators have decided to move and bring in norms on capital, and you believe there should be more transparency in dealing with this. What are the implications if these proposals go through?
I don't know. That's a great question. One thing that should take place is clarity on what regulators want. Do they want the mortgage business inside banks or outside? Do they want credit outside banks or inside? Do they want diversification or not? Some of these rules are anti-diversification. Do you want G-SIB capital requirements to apply the same to American banks as to national banks? Right now it's 30 percent more. There should be cost-benefit analysis and transparency about what we're trying to accomplish. I'd have preferred that this work was done beforehand. Now it'll probably take place, and we'll see. Regulators are going to do what they want to do. JPMorgan can't change that. Everyone will put in their comments, and hopefully we end up in a good place.
My last question: AI. You believe AI is going to drive JPMorgan's future and is critical to every aspect of your business. What are you doing about it?
We have a thousand people involved. AI is as real as they say. We have 300 use cases around marketing, fraud, and risk. When we move 10 trillion dollars a day, it's going through AI systems. Every application, every job, every person will be affected. Remember, bad guys will use it too, so we have to stay ahead of them on voice recognition, how they use data, and even cybersecurity. It's going to be great for mankind. There may be some disruption, and I think governments should be prepared to deal with it, but they can't stop AI. And since it can be used around the world, bad guys will use it too. So it's probably a very big plus for mankind, but I completely understand people's concerns about the bad side of it.
Well, Jamie Dimon, always a pleasure. Many thanks for joining us here on CNBC-TV18 and for your time.
Thank you, thank you so much. It's good to have you here.
Well, that's it on this edition of the Global Dialogue. From all of us, goodbye, and many thanks for watching.
Comments 0