Jamie Dimon isn't ruling out a recession yet
JPMorgan Chase Bank (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon is warning that a recession isn't 'off the table' despite the recent trade truce between the United States and China.
Dimon made the comments in an interview with Bloomberg TV while attending JPMorgan's annual Global Markets Conference in Paris and cited the global geopolitical tensions as a variable to watch.
'The geopolitical situation is very tense, very difficult, and hard to resolve,' he said of the trade wars and the military conflicts currently rattling the globe.
He did also note that some of the uncertainty shadowing the markets pre-dates the Trump administration, citing large deficits, inflation, and higher interest rates.
'I will defer to economists who give it about a 50 percent chance,' Dimon said, adding that all of the geopolitical uncertainty is inflationary and slowing the economy.
His comments also come amid the slowing of consumer spending, which some economists worry could tip the nation into a recession.
Data released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau show that overall consumer spending was flat in April, rising 0.1 percent after rising 1.7 percent in March. The report noted that there may have been no increase at all in April and that the .01 is within the survey's margin of error.
Sporting goods and hobby stores saw sales trend downward by 2.5 percent, leading the declines, while spending at department stores fell 1.4 percent.
Economists say that a continued de-escalation of the U.S.-China trade war would help relieve the economic pressure. Goldman Sachs (GS), for instance, lowered its odds of a recession in the U.S. this year from 45 percent to 35 percent on Tuesday in the wake of the easing of the tariffs between the two countries.
For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
a day ago
- Wall Street Journal
Moody's Chief Economist on Recession Fears and How Politics Shapes the Economy - WSJ's Take On the Week
On WSJ's Take On the Week, co-hosts Telis Demos and Gunjan Banerji start the show by looking at why rare earth magnets remain at the center of trade talks with China. Why are business leaders like Elon Musk and Jamie Dimon critical of President Trump's tax and spending bill, and what does it mean for bonds and the deficit? Plus, we take a look at inflation ahead of this week's CPI report. Later on the show, Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, gives his take on all the policy balls in the air and how where they land will affect the economy. He shares which economic barometers he's keeping an eye on – from employment rates and immigration to inflation and consumer sentiment – and which give him confidence in a resilient U.S. economy. This is WSJ's Take On the Week where co-hosts Gunjan Banerji, lead writer for Live Markets, and Telis Demos, Heard on the Street's banking and money columnist, cut through the noise and dive into markets, the economy and finance—the big trades, key players and business news ahead. Have an idea for a future guest or episode? How can we better help you take on the week? We'd love to hear from you. Email the show at takeontheweek@ To watch the video version of this episode, visit our WSJ Podcasts YouTube channel or the video page of Further Reading Automakers Race to Find Workaround to China's Stranglehold on Rare-Earth Magnets Why the U.S. Economy Will Muddle Through Trump's Tariffs. Probably. U.S. Economy Shows Remarkable Resilience in Face of Trade Turmoil What the U.S.-China Tariff Rollback Means for the American Economy Trump Downplays Economic Concerns as He Looks to Cut Trade Deals For more coverage of the markets and your investments, head to , WSJ's Heard on The Street Column, and WSJ's Live Markets blog . Sign up for the WSJ's free Markets A.M. newsletter.
Business Insider
a day ago
- Business Insider
'No recession bet whatsoever': The stock market isn't pricing in any sort of economic downturn, investment firm says
Investors are betting that the US economy will continue to grow and they're behaving as if there's "no recession risk whatsoever," market research firm The Leuthold Group wrote in a note last week. That conclusion is based on a key indicator, the S&P 500 Cyclical/Defensive Ratio, which compares the most economically sensitive sectors, like consumer discretionary, industrials, and materials, to more stable areas of the market such as consumer staples, healthcare, and utilities. The Leuthold Group calculates this metric based on price to earnings, price to cash flow, price to sales, and price to book ratios. Cyclical stocks typically trade at a discount during recessions because their earnings are more vulnerable to economic slowdowns. Investors, meanwhile, pay a relative premium for the safety of defensive stocks with more inelastic demand. In May, this ratio hit an all-time high of 1.19, indicating a 19% premium for cyclical stocks relative to defensive shares. This isn't an anomaly, as the ratio has held above 1.05 — placing it in the top 10% of historical readings — for 13 consecutive months. Recession fears have come down since reaching a fever pitch in April. After the announcement of a 90-day tariff pause and trade negotiations with China, the odds of a recession have fallen from 66% to 28% on prediction market Polymarket. However, several Wall Street strategists are still concerned, as a 28% chance of recession is still higher than the long-term average of around 15%. Torsten Sløk, chief economist at Apollo, and Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, have been ringing the bell on stagflation concerns. According to The Leuthold Group, a 28% chance of recession is still far too high based on what the market is pricing in. Ahead of past recessions — including 2000, 2008, and 2020 — cyclical sectors were trading at steep discounts to their more stable counterparts. The average valuation gap at pre-recession market peaks was about 25% in favor of defensives. During these recessions, the average valuation gap increased to 38%. "Much of the recession 'discount' in the comparative valuations of Cyclicals occurred during the twelve months (or earlier) preceding the pre-recession stock market peak. Today, that process does not appear to have begun," the firm wrote. The elevated S&P 500 Cyclical/Defensive Ratio also reflects some valuation shifts that have occurred over the last few decades. Defensive stock valuations have been declining as long-term growth for consumer staples and healthcare companies slow down. These companies now trade at a 10% discount to the S&P 500, compared to a medium premium of 10% since 1990. During previous recessionary bear markets, defensives traded at a 33% premium relative to the rest of the market, suggesting room for a defensive comeback if recessionary fears return. If this does occur, investors heavily exposed to cyclicals will suffer the most. Investors are continuing to bet on the most economically sensitive parts of the market. As long as cyclical stocks retain their valuation premium against defensives, it seems like there's no recession scare to be worried about.
The Hill
2 days ago
- The Hill
A bond market meltdown might be inevitable
The recent surge in yields on long-dated U.S. Treasurys has generated concern in some circles. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, recently warned that the bond market is likely to crack as a result of spiraling government debt levels. 'I just don't know if it's going to be a crisis in six months or six years, and I'm hoping that we change both the trajectory of the debt and the ability of market makers to make markets,' he said. Others remain more sanguine and observe that interest rates have in fact normalized close to their pre-2008 global financial crisis levels. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, both real and nominal rates were stuck at unusually low levels for about a dozen years. But, since 2022, we have seen both policy and market rates edge toward their pre-crisis levels. With interest rates reverting back to their historical norms, is the current wariness surrounding the long end of the yield curve among key investors warranted? To evaluate the validity of such fears, it is worth reviewing recent U.S. fiscal history. During the past 45 years, the U.S. has had to deal periodically with the 'twin deficits' problem — the near-synchronous widening of the fiscal deficit and the current account deficit. In the past, bipartisan policy compromises pushed through by enlightened political leadership have helped America avoid a debt/currency crisis. In the early 1980s, the Reagan-era tax cuts contributed to a decline in U.S. government revenue that was not offset by cuts on the spending side and this led to a widening of the budget deficit. Meanwhile, the high interest rates associated with the Paul Volcker disinflation episode led to a sharp appreciation of the U.S. dollar and contributed to a deterioration of the trade and current account balances. This simultaneous deterioration of budget and current account balances gave rise to the twin-deficit hypothesis and highlighted the potential interconnectedness between fiscal deficits and trade deficits. Emergence of 'twin deficits' during the early 1980s generated significant concern in policymaking circles and led to concrete measures on both the fiscal front (in the form of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990) and on the exchange rate stabilization front (in the form of multilateral agreements such as the 1985 Plaza Accord and the 1987 Louvre Accord). In the Clinton era, further steps (such as the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, the reduction in military spending associated with the post-Cold War peace dividend and the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act) were undertaken to improve the U.S. fiscal outlook. During the fiscal 1998 through fiscal 2001 period, the federal government even ran budget surpluses. Concerns regarding the 'twin deficits' reemerged during the George W. Bush era as fiscal and current account imbalances worsened. Prior to the 2008 global financial crisis, economists worried that the spike in budget and trade deficits was serious enough to threaten a dollar crisis. Following the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, however, there was a dollar shortage abroad and the U.S. currency actually strengthened. Furthermore, as household consumption collapsed and personal saving rate rose, the U.S. current account markedly improved in the post- global financial crisis era. During the Obama era, the 2011 Budget Control Act and the artificially suppressed borrowing costs (via Fed's quantitative easing and near-zero interest rate policies) helped ease the fiscal burden. Over the past five years, both the budget and trade deficits have deteriorated sharply. Budget deficits have exceeded 5 percent of GDP since 2020 and projections indicate deficits will remain elevated, raising concerns about fiscal sustainability. Critically, government borrowing costs have risen sharply since 2022. Historian Niall Ferguson has suggested that America's superpower status may be threatened as the U.S. government now spends more on interest payments than on defense. Unlike prior episodes, the current cycle of deteriorating external and fiscal imbalances is significantly more worrisome as the country appears to be beset by institutional decay and political ineptitude. Domestic and foreign investors in U.S. Treasurys are starting to fret about the absence of fiscal rectitude even as government debt-to-GDP ratios reach levels last observed in 1946. Additionally, illogical and inconsistent policies on the trade and foreign policy front raise the prospect of a so-called 'moron premium' being applied to U.S. assets. Legislative threats to tax foreign capital is raising alarm and will likely push up the cost of borrowing even further. Such actions are also fueling concerns about the pre-eminent reserve currency status of the U.S. dollar. Any diminishment of dollar's exorbitant privilege will affect U.S. fiscal sustainability. Unlike the 1990s, there is currently no political consensus on reining in fiscal profligacy and restoring fiscal sanity. Harvard's Ken Rogoff recently noted: 'To be sure, this isn't just about Trump. Interest rates were already rising sharply during Biden's term. Had Democrats won the presidency and both houses of Congress in 2024, America's fiscal outlook would probably have been just as bleak. Until a crisis hits, there is little political will to act, and any leader who attempts to pursue fiscal consolidation runs the risk of being voted out of office.' The late great MIT economist Rudiger Dornbusch once quipped: 'In economics, things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.' Recent spikes in bond market volatility and long-dated Treasury yields suggest that the moment of fiscal reckoning may finally be approaching. Vivekanand Jayakumar, Ph.D., is an associate professor of economics at the University of Tampa.
