Latest news with #MoneyMovers
CNBC
an hour ago
- Business
- CNBC
Trump housing regulator Pulte says Fed's Cook should resign or be fired, alleging mortgage fraud
Key Points President Donald Trump demanded Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook's immediate resignation. Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte urged the Department of Justice to launch a criminal investigation related to Cook's mortgage records. The remarks show Trump expanding his attacks on the Fed beyond its chairman, Jerome Powell, as he pressures the central bank to slash interest rates. VIDEO11:51 Trump housing regulator Pulte says Fed's Cook should resign or be fired over mortgage fraud claims The head of President Donald Trump 's housing regulatory agency said Wednesday that Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook should resign or be fired for cause over what he claims is evidence of "mortgage fraud" by the central bank official. "To be honest, I think she needs to resign quickly," Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said of Cook on CNBC's " Money Movers." "I think she will have to resign, or I think she will be fired," he said. The remarks came hours after Trump, reacting to a letter Pulte sent to the Department of Justice asking it to criminally investigate Cook, wrote in a social media post that the governor " must resign, now!!!" The letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi is the latest example of the Trump administration airing allegations of mortgage-related wrongdoing against the president's opponents. The Justice Department is investigating Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and New York Attorney General Letitia James on similar grounds. It also shows Trump expanding his efforts to push the Fed to slash interest rates, a pressure campaign that so far has mostly focused on central bank chairman Jerome Powell. Cook, who was nominated by former President Joe Biden in 2022, voted with the majority on the Federal Open Market Committee to keep rates unchanged after the group's latest meeting last month. The Fed and the DOJ declined CNBC's requests for comment on Pulte's claims and Trump's reaction. Pulte's central allegation is that Cook claimed two different properties as her primary residence at the same time. "You cannot do that in America," he said on CNBC. The agency chief, who has aggressively backed Trump's frequent attacks on the Fed and Powell, insisted that his actions were apolitical. "There's no funny business here," Pulte said. "This is straightforward stuff, and if you commit mortgage fraud, especially in black and white, you will be prosecuted." But he tore into Cook at length on social media earlier Wednesday morning. "Lisa Cooked is cooked," he wrote in one post. In another, Pulte wrote that he believes Trump "has cause to fire" the Fed governor. Central bank governors under the law can only be removed for "cause," which is generally understood to mean serious misconduct. Pulte repeated on CNBC that "of course" there was cause to fire Cook — though he appeared to suggest that Powell, not Trump, could be the one to do it. "I'll tell you this, Jay Powell, he has a chance to do the right thing by the law. I mean, this is just, you know, this is common sense, what he needs to do here," Pulte said. But the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 states explicitly that board members can only be removed by the president. Moreover, the Supreme Court suggested earlier this year that the president does not have the authority to arbitrarily remove Fed governors over policy disagreements. Pulte's letter, dated Friday, alleges that mortgage documents obtained by FHFA appear to show Cook "falsified bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms, potentially committing mortgage fraud." He accused Cook of "falsifying residence statuses" for a residence in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and a property in Atlanta, Georgia, "in order to potentially secure lower interest rates and more favorable loan terms." For both properties, Cook "appears to have acquired mortgages that do not meet certain lending requirements and could have received favorable loan terms under fraudulent circumstances," Pulte alleged. Pulte in his social-media spree Wednesday morning also wielded his claims about Cook against Powell. "I hear Jay Powell is scrambling this morning. He can scramble all he wants, but he might as well be scrambling eggs, because the party at the Fed is OVER!" he wrote in one post. He claimed in another post, "Powell must look into it or he is complicit."
CNBC
2 days ago
- Business
- CNBC
Analysts downplay AI bubble worries as Altman says some investors will be left 'very burnt'
The artificial intelligence boom that Sam Altman helped ignite with ChatGPT in late 2022 is starting to make even him uneasy. Startups with little more than a pitch deck are raising hundreds of millions. Valuations have become "insane." Capital is chasing a "kernel of truth" with feverish speed. The OpenAI CEO still believes the long-term societal upside of AI will outweigh the froth, and he's ready to keep spending in pursuit of that goal. "Are we in a phase where investors as a whole are overexcited about AI? My opinion is yes," he said at a recent dinner with reporters. "Is AI the most important thing to happen in a very long time? My opinion is also yes." He repeated the word 'bubble' three times in 15 seconds, then half-joked, "I'm sure someone's gonna write some sensational headline about that. I wish you wouldn't, but that's fine." While Altman warned that valuations are now out of control, he's ready to shell out on more infrastructure. "You should expect OpenAI to spend trillions of dollars on datacenter construction in the not very distant future," Altman said. "And you should expect a bunch of economists wringing their hands, saying, 'This is so crazy, it's so reckless,' and we'll just be like, 'You know what? Let us do our thing.'" OpenAI is already looking beyond Microsoft Azure's cloud capacity, and is shopping around for more. The company signed a deal with Google Cloud this spring and, according to Altman, OpenAI is "beyond the compute demand" of what any one hyperscaler can offer. "You should expect us to take as much compute as we can," he added. "Our bet is, our demand is going to keep growing, our training needs are going to keep going, and we will spend maybe more aggressively than any company who's ever spent on anything ahead of progress, because we just have this very deep belief in what we're seeing." It's not just OpenAI. All the megacaps are trying to keep up. In their most recent earnings, tech's biggest names all raised capital expenditure guidance to keep pace with AI demand: Microsoft is now targeting $120 billion in full-year capital expenditures, Amazon is topping $100 billion, Alphabet raised its forecast to $85 billion, and Meta lifted the high end of its capex range to $72 billion. Wedbush's Dan Ives said Monday on CNBC's "Closing Bell" that demand for AI infrastructure has grown 30% to 40% in the last months, calling the capex surge a validation moment for the sector. Ives acknowledged "some froth" in parts of the market, but said the AI revolution with autonomous is only starting to play out and we are in the "second inning of a nine-inning game." "The actual impact over the medium and long term is actually being underestimated," he said. Citi's Rob Rowe, speaking Monday on CNBC's "Money Movers," pushed back on comparisons between today's AI boom and the dotcom bubble. "Back then, you had a lot of over-leveraged situations. You didn't have a lot of companies that had earnings," Rowe said. "Here you're talking about companies that have very solid earnings, very strong cash flow, and they're funding a lot of this growth through that cash flow. So in many respects, it's a little different than that." He added that the current wave of AI investment is being driven by structural shifts in the global economy, particularly the rapid growth of digital services, which now account for a large share of global exports. Also unlike the dotcom cycle of the late 90s, companies today are funding their infrastructure spending with strong cash flow rather than relying on debt. Still, concerns about overheating have been mounting. Alibaba co-founder Joe Tsai pointed to worrying signs in the AI sector well before the hyperscalers raised their annual capex guidance during the latest earnings prints. In March, he warned of a brewing AI bubble in the U.S. Speaking at HSBC's Global Investment Summit in Hong Kong, Tsai said he was astounded by the scale of datacenter spending under discussion. Tsai questioned whether hundreds of billions in spending is necessary, and flagged concern about companies starting to build datacenters "on spec," without clear demand. Altman, for his part, sees these cycles as part of the natural rhythm of technological progress. The dotcom crash wiped out scores of companies, but still gave rise to the modern internet. He expects AI to follow a similar path: a few high-profile wipeouts, followed by a lasting transformation. "I do think some investors are likely to get very burnt here, and that sucks. And I don't want to minimize that," he said. "But on the whole, it is my belief that... the value created by AI for society will be tremendous."
CNBC
6 days ago
- Business
- CNBC
John Deere forecasts $600 million in tariff impacts this year
John Deere is warning that tariff costs for the agricultural machinery company could reach a total of $600 million for the fiscal 2025 year. The company released its fiscal third-quarter earnings report Thursday, beating on the top and bottom lines but posting significant year-over-year decreases in net income and sales. The stock sank roughly 7% in midday trading. The company noted that operating profits for the quarter decreased primarily due to higher tariffs and production costs associated with it. Deere's Director of Investor Relations John Beal said on an earnings call with analysts Thursday that the company took a significant hit in the third quarter due to tariffs. "Tariff costs in the quarter were approximately $200 million, which brings us to roughly $300 million in tariff expense year-to-date based on tariff rates in effect as of today," Beal said. "Our forecast for the pre-tax impact of tariffs in fiscal 2025 is now adjusted to nearly $600 million." Here's how the company performed in the fiscal third quarter compared with what Wall Street was expecting, based on a survey of analysts by LSEG: For the quarter ending July 24, Deere reported a net income of $1.29 billion, down 26% from $1.73 billion the year prior. The company's total net sales of $12.02 billion took a 9% hit over the period, down from $13.15 billion. Deere also trimmed the high end of its net income outlook for the fiscal year to $4.75 billion to $5.25 billion, compared with a prior estimate of $4.75 billion to $5.5 billion. "We remain committed to delivering solutions that address our customers' current needs while also laying the groundwork for future growth," CEO John May said in the report. "The positive outcomes we're enabling reinforce our confidence in Deere's future despite near-term uncertainty." Oppenheimer analyst Kristen Owen said the company is taking an "appropriately cautiously optimistic outlook" given the broader economic environment. "Really, a lot of the uncertainty is what does '26 look like," Owen said on CNBC's "Money Movers." "What does 2026 demand look like now that we're in this environment where the commodities backdrop isn't nearly as favorable as it was six months ago, and you have an awful lot of trade uncertainty?" Deere also noted that the company is seeing green shoots of growing demand in Europe and South America. Cory Reed, the president of Deere's worldwide agriculture and turf division, said on the call that the company believes there are good things yet to come out of the economic struggles. "We think there's positive tailwinds from both what we see in the trade deals, and we think there are positive tailwinds from what we see in tax policy," Reed said.
CNBC
31-07-2025
- Business
- CNBC
CNBC Exclusive: Transcript: JPMorgan Chase Chairman & CEO Jamie Dimon Speaks with CNBC's Leslie Picker on 'Money Movers' Today
WHEN: Today, Thursday, July 31, 2025 WHERE: CNBC's "Money Movers" Following is the unofficial transcript of a CNBC exclusive interview with JPMorgan Chase Chairman & CEO Jamie Dimon on CNBC's "Money Movers" (M-F, 11AM-12PM ET) today, Thursday, July 31. Following are links to video on and All references must be sourced to CNBC. LESLIE PICKER: Needs no introduction, David. I'm here with Jamie Dimon, the chairman and CEO of JPMorgan. Thank you, Jamie. We are here at the 1,000th branch opening since you all announced your expansion plans back in 2018. Why is it important for you to be here in Charlotte for this opening today? JAMIE DIMON: Yes. So, first of all, thrilled to be here. And I want to say hi to your dad, Scott, because I met him last time we did this in Kansas City. And we -- look, we have been opening branches since 2018. We're now in 48 states, Charlotte obviously home to some other very large banks whose name will go unmentioned. But getting out on the road, meeting your clients, thanking your new branch managers. She's already won an award, the woman here, Jennifer. You learn a lot from -- on the bus trips from clients, from customers, from employees to make you better. Every neighborhood is different. Every city is different. Every city's got different things. It's growing, expanding. So it's great to get out. It's great to be expanding. PICKER: What have you learned from the bus trip so far? You have been mostly through the South meeting with clients and companies and speaking with a lot of people. How are they weathering all of the different factors in the economy, whether it's the tax cuts or tariffs or immigration? DIMON: Right. Yes, I think that weather is a good word. They're weathering it. Most people are -- they're kind of moving on and trying to figure it out. Some, obviously, it affects more than others. Some, it's positive. Some, it's negative. But it's always uplifting. I went to visit a military company, you know, who makes stuff for the United States military and they kind of bleed the American flag. But -- it was in Huntsville. And you can see just the technology that's in that area that grows over time. And so one of the things of this trip is kind of a little bit different is, how come certain communities are doing much better than others? And we're going to try to look like best practices. Is it a local chamber? Is it local business folks, local CEOs? You know, I mentioned before this book, James Fallows. We were in Greenville. We're talking about with the river -- the river walk was built. And it works. Local democracy works, and we learn a lot. And hopefully we will disseminate best practices of that too. PICKER: There are a variety of reports this morning saying that you have met with President Trump several times over the past few months. What initiated those conversations? DIMON: Yes. Well, I'm not going to get into specific things. But, look, I think it's my job and other people's job in business to help make your country better. And so you should help anyone who can, who has ideas, who wants to talk to you. And so when -- we reach out to the administration all the time. They reach out all the time. I think it's a very good thing. In fact, one of the great lessons anywhere, no matter where you are, is that collaboration works and fighting does not. And that collaboration has to be government, business, civic society. And so with all these towns we were just in, they do a pretty good job at that. And so we appreciate the fact that the administration is reaching out all the time. PICKER: According to the reports, one of the topics of conversation was interest rates and what the Fed should be doing with interest rates. And just this morning, President Trump reiterated his attacks on Fed Chair Powell, calling him -- quote -- "too angry, too stupid, and too political" to have the job as Fed chair. What do you think is the impact of this type of language? DIMON: I have never seen a president ever say they want higher interest rates. And so I'm not going to agree with all that language, but, look, I think Jay Powell is a professional. I think independence is important. I think actually independence keeps interest rates lower, if you actually look through the history of interest rates a little bit. And just lowering short-term rates doesn't necessarily have the effect you want on 10-year rates. And we should be a little cautious. The president gets a chance to pick a new Fed chair in like eight months from now. So I think they're kind of doing the right thing. The economy's been chugging along. We have been in that soft landing now for four or five years. Inflation still hasn't hit 2 percent. It's 2.5 or 2.7, however you look at it. And I think, if inflation comes down and the economy continues to do well, they will probably reduce rates shortly. PICKER: Are you worried, as Fed Chair Powell mentioned yesterday, that the lagging effects of tariffs have yet to really fully play out, that we could still see an inflation spike from here? DIMON: I think, when you look at it, first of all, there are a lot of forces -- forces at work in the economy. And tariffs are one of them. The remilitarization of the world, the fiscal deficits, the demographics, all those things are going to drive various things. And, yes, they may drive slightly higher inflation. What you really want is more growth. That is far more important than whether inflation ticks up or down a little bit. So -- and then tariffs themselves, they have been greatly moderated. People can, I think, kind of deal with the 15 percent kind of number. In a lot of cases, these are agreements in principle. The 15 percent relates to half of the imports, not 100 percent. And I think our imports are around $4 trillion, goods imports. So if it's an average 7 or 8 percent, you're talking $300 billion a year on a $30 trillion economy. So that might have some effect. And it's also quite clear some is being passed on and some is not. And we just don't know yet. And you may see more effect down the road. We will have to wait and see. PICKER: So it sounds like you're a little less concerned than maybe you were in your annual letter, where you said that tariffs can be inflationary, just based on the deals that you have seen so far. DIMON: Yes. But -- yes, because these wars are still not getting worse. I think that's important. I think we have a tax bill that created a very stable tax environment, which is internationally competitive. So I think that's really important, that people should understand, if the United States has a non-internationally competitive tax system, it will be bad for the people of the United States, and, believe it or not, particularly lower-income people. And that's what people completely miss sometimes. And so -- and, yes. And then we started tariffs, we didn't know what they were going to be. And now we kind of know. And they're more moderate and thoughtful and more carefully done. And, hopefully, they will help some companies export. Maybe some people move manufacturing back here, so, so far, so good. PICKER: Speaking of the tax and spending plan that was just passed, were you surprised that the bond vigilantes didn't react so much to the prospect of a widening deficit? Do you think that's something that we could see still at risk down the road? DIMON: No, because there's two different things here. Our deficit is $2 trillion. And you guys focused on the fact this budget is going to add $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion. And, obviously, there will be some offset for tariffs. It's going to go from $30 trillion of debt to $50 trillion in 10 years. It's not the $3 trillion that matters. It's the extraordinary additions being added each year. And so I'm happy we have the tax bill in place, the tax side, where you know what your R&D expensing is, you know your physical equipment expensing and stuff like that. But now we have got to attack that deficit. We can't have 6.5 or 7 percent deficits forever. We may have time. I am quite clear. We don't know what -- this is not I'm talking about next year, but there will be effects, and we should attack it. We can be far more efficient. There are far too many tax breaks that should be gotten rid of. We can do multiyear budgeting. We could probably collect more taxes. I think we can fix it, but it's going to take a lot of hard work, and particularly on the part of Congress, like to roll up their sleeves and do the things they really need to do to make sure we have responsible fiscal policy. PICKER: Line-by-line budgeting. DIMON: Line-by-line, yes. PICKER: Like what you all do. DIMON: Yes. PICKER: In a recent podcast, you spoke about asset prices being pretty high. And we have seen the return of meme stocks and SPACs— DIMON: Yes. PICKER: And all of these other elements to the market right now. Do you think risk appetite is too high? DIMON: A little bit. Again, I'm not catatonic over it. It's a little high. But I still look at -- I'm talking about long factors here now. We had $10 trillion borrowed and spent in the last five years. That, by the way, over the seas too. So, almost every country did large amounts of deficit spending, huge amount of Q.E. And that's still going through the system. And that very well may be which lead to higher prices and asset prices. And so, obviously, when prices are high and credit spreads are low, you have a longer way to fall. So, yes, I'm a little cautious about the value of those things. If we have a soft landing that goes on three or four more years, and we grow into it, then it'll be fine. But things also go bad sometimes. And so we will see. PICKER: What do you— DIMON: I'm always more comfortable when prices are here than when prices are here. This is my -- just my nature. PICKER: Yes, you're managing risk on a daily basis. DIMON: Right. Yes. PICKER: What do you see the role of A.I. playing into all this? Do you think this ultimately gives the economy the productivity boost that everybody is hoping for? Are you worried that there's some job displacement and some reorganization that could be, in a way, harmful to the economy? DIMON: I think people have to be very careful on this one, OK? Technology has been great for mankind. We used to have 40 million people working on farms. Now it's like a million-and-a-half. If you want to get rid of tractors and fertilizer, we'd have to put 40 million people back on farms. Mankind would not be better off. Technology has driven all the things we have, including longer life, starting to cure cancer. All came from technology. And A.I. is another technology. It's happening quickly. You know, it's going to roll out faster than Internet and electricity, because those things took a long time to put fiber cables in and electric wires and things like that. Yes, it's hugely productive. And I think it will add to productivity. But I think people have to be a little cautious. So did the Internet, but we don't really know how. It's hard to calculate that. So technology is kind of like a cosmological constant of improving productivity. I don't think you will see it right away, because, right now, we are going to be spending more money. You see it everywhere. And we need more electricity, more data centers. And A.I. is kind of new, and people are still using it. But, eventually, yes, and it will drive productivity every -- kind of every job, every issue. You will do research using it. It'll make your job more efficient. It will eliminate certain jobs, like all technologies did, but those will be replaced by other jobs hopefully over time. It will be used by bad guys, whether you like it or not. So, you're not going to be able to stop that. But bad guys use planes and pharmaceuticals and cars badly too. So, we should be cautious. But I do -- I think it'll cure cancers. It'll come up with new molecules. It'll invent new ceramics. And so let's just -- it will help mankind. If it happens too quickly and that, therefore, somehow leads to a huge job loss in short time period, we, government and business, should work together to get rid of that effect by retraining, reskilling, relocating, income assistance, and which is doable. We do it inside our own company. We constantly redeploy people. When jobs are changing, we're constantly giving you new skills to go do another job. PICKER: Do you think that ultimately is driven by some sort of a downturn that requires companies to be more efficient, or do you think it's something where the technology gets to the point where CEOs such as yourself say, we have an opportunity to be more efficient, and take it upon themselves to really become leaner? DIMON: I think most CEOs are constantly trying to do that. Obviously, when you're under pressure, there's -- people find better ways to do it, and maybe there's a little more -- they do it a little bit faster. But I think companies are kind of doing that all the time. The efficiency and productivity of American business is extraordinary. And I remember, years ago, people saying you will never have more efficiency on the farms, 1.5 percent every year, every single -- almost every single year since people said that. And it's from better fertilizers. It's from satellites telling you exactly where the water needs to be. It's from better farming techniques. It's from better refrigeration techniques. It's from better farm equipment, every year, 1.5 percent. So, American business does a very good job at enhancing productivity. How you see it in the economy is not in a straight line. It kind of goes in kind of waves of some sort. PICKER: And probably follows some of the cyclical patterns that you see. You all just announced plans to expand research coverage to private companies, beginning with OpenAI. And I know you and I have talked about this, this idea of the disappearing public companies that are out there. DIMON: Yes. PICKER: It's something you have talked about a lot in your annual letters as an issue of key concern. How should we be thinking about just the public versus the private markets, both from an ability to kind of increase the number of public companies, as well as from a regulatory standpoint, to make sure that there's a level playing field? DIMON: Yes, so two really different things. So, we're doing research on private companies and private industries. So, we started with A.I. We may have some others. There might be batteries. There might be defense companies. There's nothing wrong with private companies and private investment and private capital and private innovation. The other issue is that we have gone from 8,000 public companies to 4,000. And I have mentioned this over the years. We're driving companies out of the public markets. I don't think that's a good idea. And if you look at why and we try to analyze it, it's litigation. It's the cost of filing. It's the cookie-cutter governance that gets applied. It's ISS and Glass Lewis. It's all these things which are driving companies out of the public markets. And I don't think that's a great idea. I think we need more vibrant public markets. And there are some around the world that are taking smaller companies public, which also gives people a chance to invest in them. And so we -- I think it's good that regulators are going to be looking at what caused this. I also think, every now and then, regulation needs to be saying, what is it we want to happen? Because some of these things are just done thoughtlessly. We put in 50 different rules, and, before you know it, we have cut the public companies in half. And no one said that's what we wanted. And like I said, I think it's a bad idea, but it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with being private. PICKER: And we have talked about regulation for a while. Are you encouraged by some of the developments out of Washington as it pertains to deregulation and supervision reform— DIMON: Yes. PICKER: And everything that has affected JPMorgan and your peers? DIMON: Yes. I mean, if you travel around the world, OK, regulations -- again, the -- we -- I don't even like the word deregulation. We have crippling rules in place. And you go to Europe -- if you guys want to go, go to Europe and see what they did to their own innovation, their own growth, their own hiring. And all those things, counter to what people think, hurt lower-income people more. So the people who say regulation, of course, you want good regulation. We want healthy food. We want healthy air. We want healthy banks. Of course, you want that. But every now and then, you should step back and say, let's look at the big picture. And I am very happy. I think they're looking at it. They're looking at it aggressively. But they should all step back and say, what is it we did? What worked? What didn't work? What do we want the outcomes to be? I personally think that, to just take banks, for example, you can make them safer. Silicon Valley Bank didn't have to happen. First Republic didn't have to happen. And it wasn't about capital. It was about interest rate exposure and a bunch of other more esoteric type of things. I think we can make the system better, safer, cheaper. I think we can make more mortgages. We can make more mortgage in low-income housings, which would start growing single-family homes again. And we don't. What we just do is, we just add rules and regulations that are just like barnacles in the boat, and then we're surprised that we're growing at 1.7 percent or 1.8 percent. Everybody is complaining that you can't get permits to get a C.O. You know, a certificate of occupancy can take you three years. And that's politics, bureaucracy, small forms of graft. We should fix these things. America used to be the can-do nation, and now we're the -- I call it blue tape. It's because the Democrats seem to love regulations. They -- people have to step back say, what is it you want? What did it actually achieve? What did it actually accomplish? And, yes, I'm gratified they're looking at it. And I hope they make a lot of changes. And we want banks to be safer, not less safe. And the only way you do that is have conversations. We have given them a million ways that we think you can make banks safer and, in some cases, put tougher rules in place. Like, I always make a joke that I would like to run the FDIC. If I ran the FDIC, you wouldn't have had those failures. I would be much tougher on the kind of exposure those banks took. PICKER: Well, Silicon Valley Bank had a very good supervisory reading going into its failure, so— DIMON: Right. Right, and enormous interest rate exposure, right? Why would they allow that? And bad accounting, why would they allow that? And they didn't post collateral at the Fed. Why would they allow that? And so I'm saying there's basic stuff that could be -- the plumbing that could be fixed that had nothing to do with capital. In some ways, it had nothing to do with anything. It's just had to do with just good supervision and good management and good reporting of your own risks. PICKER: I want to ask you about private credit, because we have seen a slew of headlines about -- that suggest that you think private credit is dangerous and that you think it may be a little bit toppy, but the firm wants more exposure to it. Could you clear that all up? DIMON: Yes, people just -- they -- it's like clickbait. They look at one thing. There are risks in credit. Credit is a risky thing to begin with. So you can look at direct lending or non-direct lending. We look at the world from the standpoint of the customer. So, any customer out here, big company or small, we will offer you bank -- traditional bank lending or direct lending. There are pros and cons to direct lending for you, like different covenants. It can be done quicker. It can be done single underwritten. We can underwrite by $40 billion if we wanted to. So we -- I want you to be happy. I want to offer you the pros and cons, give you choices. And that's why we announced the $50 billion. We're not going to do bad credit. If we think it's -- we're not going to stretch to do stuff we think is dumb. We didn't do it in '07 and '08. We're not going to do it today. But I will offer you the choices. And so I'm not against private credit. I do think there are issues in it that will rear themselves one day. I would say there are issues in credit in general that will rear themselves one day. So, it isn't -- I'm just cautious about when people provide credit. So -- but we always look at the world, what's good for the client and what should we offer them? And the direct lenders have done a really good job building a business that clients like, because it's fast, it's special covenants, it's single borrower, single lender, kind of. It's all being syndicated now. I think they're all coming closer together too, by the way. So, over time, you are going to see a kind of merging of the two. PICKER: Fascinating. Speaking of merging, we have seen lately a merging of kind of crypto and J.P. Morgan and traditional finance in recent months, whether it's the Coinbase partnership that you announced yesterday, where Chase customers can use credit cards to fund Coinbase accounts, or investor day, where you said clients can buy Bitcoin, although you have cautioned against it, or the stablecoin-like token JPMD. How prevalent do you see crypto in traditional finance? And do you foresee risks as these two worlds do become more intertwined? DIMON: Yes, well, first of all, there's never been a new financial product that didn't entail risk. So that -- obviously, there's going to be risk. And they haven't written all the laws yet. Like, think of the guard -- think of the rules around, it like AML and BSA and KYC and disclosures. And when they say stablecoin, which we're going to have. I'm not against stablecoin. It's like a mutual fund. But mutual funds have rules. What are the rules can be around stablecoins? And the youth -- I think there are really -- so, I'm a believer in stablecoin. I'm a believer in blockchain. Not personally a believer in Bitcoin itself. But you're the customer. I don't like to tell customers what they can and can't do with their money. That is a whole different issue for us. And so we're going to accommodate those things. You mentioned that we did a deal with Coinbase. So you can now move money from Chase to Coinbase. We're going to make it easier for people. They have agreed how to use our APIs, which we think is a good thing. So we will be in it, and we will see. It's a little bit of a solution looking for a problem, because if I'm going to send you -- we already have the JPMorgan Coin. We already move money 24/7. We move $10 trillion a day quite effectively, efficiently, safely, with all the cyber protection and stuff like that. But if I'm going to send you a stablecoin, you're going to say to me at one point, well, I don't want your mutual fund. Just send me cash, and then I will invest the way I want. And -- but there are things that stablecoins maybe can do that traditional cash can't. Like, it's programmable. I might be able to send that stablecoin. Then you can send it to 10 different vendors you want to pay on a regular basis or something like that. So we will be in it. and we will use it. And if -- again, if the customers want to use it, and how they use it, and it's used properly, we will be doing it. It's what the customer wants. It's not what JPMorgan personally wants. PICKER: Sounds like that's the case with both private credit and crypto. DIMON: Right. PICKER: I want to ask you about New York City, because you all are building a big new headquarters there. You have devoted a lot of capital to New York. I know it's a place near and dear to your heart as well. We saw the tragic shooting that took place down the road from where your new headquarters are going to be. It really feels like kind of this pivotal time in the city. And I'm just curious how you think about that, whether it's from a workplace safety standpoint or as we look ahead to the mayoral election in the fall. DIMON: Yes, so, when I grew up in New York, remember that poster that had New York and kind of the rest of the world? And I think you have to be very careful. You get a little arrogant about -- I love New York. It's got huge people, huge talent, huge capabilities. But when you travel the world, there are unbelievably great cities called Hong Kong and Singapore and Nashville and Greenville and Charlotte, and they're all competing. You know, people -- Greenville, it's like -- it's shocking. They're all doing well. They have universities and arts and river walks. And so, if I was running a city, I would say, it's got to be competitive. It's -- you don't have a divine right to success, no matter what the past told you about something like that. And so -- and that's true for New York, when I look at crime and schools and subways and stuff like that. So it's still a home. And my heart goes out for what happened, obviously. But I'm not going to change all of our strategies overnight because of who's running for mayor or things like that. If the mayor -- but that may -- whoever becomes mayor of New York should understand, the day they become mayor, it's about safety. It's about subways. It's about having businesses and good jobs. It's about all those things that make it a great city. It's not about your ideology. It's not about your beliefs. It's not about things you sold people on. And I hope, whoever's mayor, we will try to advise them and do as best they can to make it a great city. PICKER: Are you optimistic? DIMON: And -- but, at the margin, New York is losing people. That's not a great idea. And that's been going on now for years, mostly because of high taxes, individual corporate, some crime, subways, etc. And that's just not a good idea. PICKER: Zohran Mamdani is the front-runner here. Are you optimistic he will be able to get all of that done? DIMON: I have no idea. If he becomes mayor, I will offer my help to him, and we will see. A lot of things he prescribes have never worked before, but we will see. But I will still try to help him do the best job he can, and— PICKER: Same as we kind of started with President Trump as well. DIMON: Exactly. PICKER: Alright, Jamie Dimon, thank you very much for being here live from Charlotte. I will send it back to you all in the studio.
CNBC
25-07-2025
- Business
- CNBC
ON Semi CEO on President Trump's AI plan
Hassane El-Khoury, CEO of ON Semiconductor, joins CNBC's Money Movers to discuss President Trump's AI plan unveiled on Wednesday, what the plan means for the semiconductor industry, and more.
