Jamie Dimon访谈:JP Morgan如何成为一家8000亿美元的银行
Dimon 对银行管理的核心判断,是牺牲部分周期高点回报,让银行穿越肥尾风险并持续复利。 JPMorgan 在2007年前的净资产收益率低于那些做到30%的银行,但其中许多后来倒闭;他的压力情景包括市场下跌50%、利率升至8%,以及信用利差触及历史最差水平。在金融服务业,“杠杆会杀死你”,而保守经营的回报极其简单:“你还在场。”
Bank One 的扭转,将所有者级别的投入与对风险的全面重新定价结合起来。 Dimon 将大约一半的净资产投入这家陷入困境、规模约210亿美元的银行,随后逐笔审查贷款、提高拨备,并将资产负债表缩减约500亿美元。中型市场业务的收入结构,也从约80%来自贷款、20%来自其他服务,转为40%和60%:每单位信用风险带来的收益更高。
2004年JPMorgan Chase合并成功,靠的是业务之间相互强化,以及消除继任不确定性的机制。 Bank One 股东获得合并后公司42%的股份,Dimon 原定在18个月后出任CEO,除非由一半对一半组成的董事会以75%的票数否决。尽管主持人称JPMorgan这个品牌是“蒂芙尼级的名字”,Dimon 表示自己并不看重品牌在交易中的价值;在他的排序中,业务逻辑、执行能力和价格都优先于品牌声望。
JPMorgan在2008年前的优势来自组织,而非信息:它看到了同样的狂热,却重设激励机制来抵抗狂热。 Dimon 收缩次贷业务、囤积流动性,并以大约为大型投行三分之一的杠杆率运营;同期行业杠杆率从约12倍升至35倍。他取消了大多数私人薪酬安排、20%的利润池机制,以及那些鼓励银行家增加杠杆的“眼神示意”“点头”和私下安排。
危机时期的收购扩大了战略触达,但前提是JPMorgan能够承受资产减值和执行负担。 Bear Stearns 带来了系统性责任、约3000亿美元资产、完整核销的120亿美元有形账面价值,最终还带来50亿美元政府和解金;WaMu 则以300亿美元买入价、低于有形账面价值的折价获得2300家分行,债务留在原公司,价格大致对应预期抵押贷款损失,随后JPMorgan又增发110亿美元股权,并在9个月内完成系统整合。First Republic后来贡献了高接触式客户服务模式,JPMorgan正通过约20家Financial Centers进行测试。
Dimon目前并不认为私人信贷市场规模达到2万亿美元,也不认为它已构成系统性风险,但其快速增长和可能存在的“隐性杠杆”值得审视。 他更尖锐的市场警告针对估值:市盈率为23倍而非15倍时,“上行空间不大,下跌空间却很长。”他所说的最大风险是网络攻击;JPMorgan每年在网络安全上投入约8亿美元,因为电网、通信、供水和军事基础设施可能缺乏足够保护。
真正持久的护城河,是一个彼此紧密连接的业务组合,能够持续投入而不牺牲效率。 主持人估计,JPMorgan每取得1美元收入,能比竞争对手多留下约15美分利润,即便同时持续投资于员工、分行和技术;Dimon认为,削减数十亿美元营销费用,或通过停止扩张分行节省10亿美元,虽然会抬高当期利润率,却会削弱增长和未来经济效益。正如主持人所概括的,这是一家市值超过8000亿美元、超过最近一家银行业竞争对手两倍的公司,靠一种“就是一路碾过去”的文化建立起来。
1. 被解雇后,他把地位转化为一场所有者式下注
Dimon 在1998年被 Citigroup 解雇时,得知消息的场合是一个周日会议;会议决定、董事会投票和新闻稿都已完成。当晚约有50名前同事带着威士忌登门,“就像给自己办守灵会”;他的孩子则问,他们以后是否要睡在街上,是否还付得起大学学费。
他用“我的净资产,而不是我的自我价值”来理解这次打击。42岁时,他考虑过教书、投资、创办商人银行、担任投行高管、加入 Home Depot,以及成为 Amazon 总裁;他喜欢 Jeff Bezos,但认为离开银行业和纽约“跨得太远”。
Bank One 是他的“栖息地”,尽管公司估值约210亿美元,远低于 Citigroup 的2000亿美元,且全家搬到芝加哥并不容易。Dimon 将一半资金投入 Bank One 股票,以表明自己会“连锅端地”投入:“我要么跟着这艘船一起沉,要么跟着它一起上升。”
2. Bank One 是一场伪装成银行的整合失败
分析师 Mike Mayo 曾写道,“就算 Hercules 来了也修不好它。”Bank One 由 Bank One、First Chicago 和 National Bank of Detroit 拼合而成,报表、处理、支付和企业系统全部重复;账户数量下降、分行关闭、信用卡业务崩溃,董事会还有21名董事——“11个人恨另外10个人。”
Dimon 放弃了董事长的转角办公室,改坐在一个能看到同事的中央位置。当高管提醒白色地毯上禁止喝咖啡时,他回答:“现在可以了。”这句话简洁地宣告,继承下来的习惯不能凌驾于运营效率之上。
真正令人警觉的发现是:Bank One 承担的美国企业信用风险高于 Citibank,但资本和储备却更少;激进的会计处理还把亏损关系标成盈利关系。Dimon 逐笔审查贷款,调低风险敞口估值,提高储备,向董事会说明衰退情景下的损失,并要求每单位风险带来更多收入。
Linda Bammann 只有在获得出售和对冲贷款的权限后才加入,必要时可处理100亿美元贷款。银行将资产负债表缩减约500亿美元,中型市场业务的经济结构则从约80%贷款收入、20%其他收入,转为40%和60%;随后到来的衰退总体可控,只有 United Airlines 破产造成重大冲击。
3. 堡垒式资产负债表定价的是生存,而不是规避风险
Dimon 对风险的定义很关键:重视风险“并不意味着消除风险”,而是要正确为风险定价,并理解可能出现的结果。目标是拥有持久的客户关系、利润率、流动性、资本和保守的会计处理,而不是追求一项在压力情景下就会消失的表格回报率。
他的历史记忆不接受“大家都这么做”“大家都没事”和“这次不一样”。他记得1987年市场单日下跌25%,1990年房地产损失让大型银行陷入危机,以及1929年的跌幅最终达到90%:剧烈结果是反复出现的特征,不是理论上的例外。
在 JPMorgan,一项继承下来的高收益债压力测试只让利差扩大40%,从约400个基点升至560个基点,因为当时认为市场已经更加成熟。Dimon 将其改为历史最差的17%水平;2008年利差达到20%,债券实际上无法出售。他的肥尾情景包括股票下跌50%、利率升至8%,以及信用利差重新触及历史纪录。
堡垒式资产负债表同样依赖会计和信任。Dimon 避免过早确认利润,因为“会计规则中间可以开进一辆卡车”;坏贷款起初会被显示为收入,杠杆暂时推高回报,而损失可能引发新闻头条、储户不信任和挤兑。2007年前,净资产收益率达到30%的银行看起来更优秀——直到其中许多倒闭。
4. JPMorgan合并将战略匹配与继任锁定结合起来
刚加入 Bank One 后,Dimon 拒绝立即收购:“我们很差劲,还没有资格去管理别人的公司。”只有在完成扭转、股价大幅上涨后,早已酝酿的 JPMorgan Chase 合并才具备执行条件。
Bank One 股东获得合并后公司42%的股份及溢价;合并后的公司保留 JPMorgan 的名称和总部所在地。更不同寻常的是,除非由8名 Bank One 董事和8名 JPMorgan 董事组成的董事会以75%的票数将他罢免,否则 Dimon 会在18个月后自动成为CEO。JPMorgan被起诉,被指为留住他而支付过高;Bank One也被起诉,被指卖得过便宜。
主持人称 JPMorgan 这个名字是“蒂芙尼级的名字”,Dimon 则表示自己并不看重它在交易中的价值。两家公司都有消费、信用卡和财富管理业务;Bank One 的企业客户需要 JPMorgan 的投行业务产品;系统整合和成本节约空间也很大。Dimon 的交易排序是业务逻辑、执行能力和价格,因为品牌无法挽救一次失败的整合。
5. 系统崩溃前,JPMorgan重写了激励机制
到2006年末,Dimon 已看到量化市场的问题和次贷信用质量恶化。他收缩业务、囤积流动性,以大约为大型投行三分之一的杠杆率运营,但事后仍毫不留情地审视自己:“我希望当时做得更多。”
行业杠杆率已从约12倍升至35倍;2007年华尔街的过桥贷款规模约4500亿美元,而在访谈时约为400亿美元。在30倍杠杆、20%利润流入薪酬的情况下,杠杆升至40倍,可能让银行家的奖金增加约25%。
Dimon 取消了20%的利润池模式,取消大多数3年期和5年期私人交易安排,也不再让薪酬狭义地绑定于个人交易;过程中有一些员工离开。“没有眼神示意,没有点头,也没有私下交易。”他的指令是绝对的:无论激励机制如何,都不能亏待客户,也不能做错事。
6. Bear Stearns证明,公共救助也可能惩罚救助者
2008年3月13日,也就是 Dimon 的生日,Bear Stearns CEO Alan Schwartz 在 Dimon 与家人共进晚餐时打来电话。Bear 当日收于57美元,几个月前还约为150美元;它需要在亚洲市场开盘前获得300亿美元。美联储可以向 JPMorgan 放贷,而 JPMorgan 可以用 Bear 的抵押品作担保,从而搭起通往周末的一日过桥资金。
数千名员工在几天内审查了 Bear 的每一项资产、贷款、衍生品、诉讼和人事政策。JPMorgan 同意以每股2美元收购,后来提高到10美元;Bear 持有约3000亿美元资产和120亿美元有形账面价值,后者被 JPMorgan 核销。为支付交易及相关成本,JPMorgan 清算贷款、对冲头寸,并承担遣散费和诉讼费用。它最终花约10亿美元买下一家不久前价值200亿美元的公司。
Dimon 认为,Bear 无序倒闭会冻结资金并触发恐慌,就像6个月后 Lehman 所发生的那样。这场救助为系统争取了时间,他原本期待其他公司借此改善流动性和资本状况,但不断累积的抵押贷款损失意味着,Bear 的存续无法阻止更广泛危机继续展开。
主持人估算的150亿至200亿美元成本后来得到纠正:120亿美元核销并非额外支付的收购对价,但 JPMorgan 后来又为 Bear 的抵押贷款支付了50亿美元。Dimon 表示,政府所要求金额中约80%涉及 Bear 和 WaMu;他对 Eric Holder 说:“我来投降。”他表示“不会再真正信任政府”,但如果未来国家再次需要帮助,他仍会接听电话——同时要求下一届政府提供保护。
7. 干净计提减值,让失败银行变成战略分销网络
Lehman 倒闭一周后,JPMorgan 收购 WaMu,获得2300家分行,并进入加州、内华达部分地区、乔治亚州和佛罗里达州。JPMorgan 以300亿美元买入 WaMu,价格低于有形账面价值,债务留在原公司;这300亿美元被视为大致对应预期抵押贷款损失:立即确认损失,再干净地拥有剩余的业务平台。
几天内,Dimon 又筹集了110亿美元股权;他表示 JPMorgan 严格来说并不需要这笔钱,但增资让资产负债表在情况恶化时仍有余地。信任让发行成为可能,执行则将其转化为价值:5万人整合5000份申请、分行、薪酬计划、结算和支付业务,WaMu 的系统在9个月内完成整合。
Dimon 将2023年的银行倒闭重新定义为集中存款问题,而不只是无保险存款问题。风投机构告诉旗下公司集体提款;他估计 Silicon Valley Bank 约有2000亿美元存款,并在一天内流失约1000亿美元。该行还缺乏充足流动性,没有将抵押品提交给美联储,并持有被分类为持有至到期、因而掩盖利率损失的资产。
当利率升至5%时,3%的抵押贷款可能只值50至60美分,即使会计处理没有变化,经济有形账面价值也会崩塌。Dimon 曾警告 Janet Yellen,First Republic 是一块“正在融化的冰块”;收购后,JPMorgan 在几天内对冲风险敞口,并采用其礼宾式服务模式。如今约20家 JPMorgan Financial Centers 正在测试这一模式;如果有效,未来20年可能扩展至300家。
8. 私人信贷不是 Dimon 眼下的主要尾部风险
被问及私人信贷是否是今天的次贷,Dimon 的回答带有保留:“我不太这么认为。”他也表示不认为市场规模达到2万亿美元。这个市场增长很快,参与者既有熟练者,也有经验不足者,但整体杠杆率通常低于约9万亿美元的抵押贷款市场;后者曾损失约1万亿美元。问题“可能”会出现,但他目前不认为私人信贷具有系统性。
隐性杠杆仍有可能存在,而广泛资产价格留下的安全垫很薄。Dimon 将15倍市盈率与如今所说的23倍进行对比:23倍意味着“上行空间不大,下跌空间却很长。”JPMorgan 每周进行约100项压力测试,覆盖广泛的市场环境。
他所说的最大风险是网络攻击。JPMorgan 每年投入约8亿美元,并与政府机构合作,但 Dimon 担心电网、通信网络、供水系统以及部分军事基础设施在冲突中保护不足。他认为中国能力很强,而俄罗斯的活动“主要是犯罪”,两者属于不同的威胁结构。
9. 业务匹配、再投资与文化,推动效率差距
JPMorgan 的架构像一家被扩展到全球的社区银行:企业和个人账户、财富与信托服务、支付以及投行业务彼此强化。Dimon 剥离了不匹配的业务,并拒绝企业“业余爱好式项目”,Citigroup 过去的卡车租赁业务就是他反复提到的反例。
主持人估计,JPMorgan 每取得1美元收入,就比竞争对手多留下约15美分利润,这也帮助解释了其超过8000亿美元的市值。Dimon 将这一利润率归因于持续投资于员工、分行和技术,而不是收割。市场“像手风琴一样伸缩”,强大的资产负债表让公司能够持续建设,或在竞争对手收缩时收购资产。
他可以削减数十亿美元营销费用,或停止开设分行,从而在次年节省10亿美元;但这样做会让当期利润率上升,同时令增长和很可能的长期利润率恶化。运营目标是穿越周期地经营,同时持续投资、犯错、测试产品,并从客户角度审视每项服务。
文化提供了更难量化的部分:员工好奇、能干,也关心门卫和前台接待员,而不只是银行家;他们像一支严肃的运动队一样训练,不需要彼此成为朋友。Dimon 将家庭排在第一,国家第二,通过公司实现的使命排在第三;他最终会教书或写作,但不会“无所事事地闻花香”。当被问及是否只有一份工作能够带来更广泛的国家影响时,他回答:“现在,是的。”
David, we completely blew it. We went into Jamie Dimon's office and had our little meet-and-greet. We did not ask about the dueling pistols from the duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, which JPMorgan owns and keeps in its headquarters. We blew it. We didn't ask to see them.
We'll just have to come back. When they finish the new building, I'm sure they'll be on the executive floor. We can go get a viewing of this piece of American history. Speaking of American history, let's do it.
Yeah, let's do it.
Today's episode is the story of a rising star on Wall Street in the 1980s who worked with his mentor to merge and acquire their way to the top of the financial world in the '90s, then got fired unexpectedly by that same mentor and had to figure out what to do next. In 2000, he accepted a job turning around a poorly run Midwestern bank. Over the next 25 years, he orchestrated one of the most remarkable runs in banking history—and really, all of corporate history.
This is the story of Jamie Dimon and how he created the modern financial behemoth JPMorgan Chase out of the beleaguered component parts of Bank One, JPMorgan Chase, Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual, and First Republic.
Jamie is now the longest-serving CEO of any major Wall Street bank and is viewed as kind of the great stabilizer of the American financial system, especially during the 2008 financial crisis. He now sits atop the largest bank in the United States, with a market cap of over $800 billion—more than twice that of its nearest competitor. It is the only bank within spitting distance of the big, trillion-dollar tech companies we've covered here on Acquired.
To really put a finer point on the dominance, it is the most valuable company east of the Mississippi in the United States and the only company east of the Mississippi worth more than half a trillion dollars. Incredible. So the question, of course, is: How did he do it? Banks fail. Financial firms often have spectacular blowups, and large organizations, financial or not, can often get so bloated that they slow down to a crawl. So what did Jamie Dimon do differently?
Well, this feels appropriate. You guys dressed up for me.
You dressed up for us, too. Thank you. Last year, we had you on the video board at Chase, and you were looking very summery there. You look great tonight.
Thank you.
We know you're a big history buff, and we consider ourselves historians above all else. What we'd like to do here tonight is walk through the 20-year story with you of how you turned JPMorgan Chase from a bank among many to the most systemically important financial institution in the world. Are you game? Sound good?
Sounds great. Thank you.
We want to start in 1998. You and your mentor, Sandy Weill, have just spent the past 13 years building the modern financial institution conglomerate—the blueprint for what JPMorgan Chase is today. Except it's not JPMorgan; it's Citigroup. Everybody on Wall Street, in the entire world, expects that you're going to be named CEO of Citigroup in short order.
1998.
This is not what happens. Instead, you get fired, and you have to restart your whole career, everything, your whole life from scratch. Sorry to start here, by the way, but before we get into what you do next, what was the model that you and Sandy built at Citigroup?
First of all, I am thrilled to be here. I want to congratulate these guys for building Acquired. It's a great, intelligent addition to what we need to learn in society.
1. The Firing That Changed Everything
I would say it wasn't quite the model, because if you look at what we did at Commercial Credit, Primerica was then Travelers, and they merged. We were a financial conglomerate. We bought lots of companies and lots of different businesses. We fixed them up, we turned them around, and we made money. Then we merged it with Citibank, which obviously was a huge bank.
My view was that we should skinny it down and shed the parts that aren't that important to the rest of the company, and keep the things that strategically belong together together. It was one of my small disagreements with Sandy about the future of the company. But it was big, it was making a lot of money, and it was quite successful at the time. Then I got fired.
So how were you feeling in that moment?
When I got fired?
Yeah, that moment.
My wife is here, and I was hosting 100 people, recruiting kids, in my apartment in New York City—the same apartment I have now. They called me. We had a management meeting Sunday at 4:00 p.m. that night. Sandy and John Reed called me and said, “Can you come a little early? We've got a bunch of stuff to talk about.”
I was the president and chief operating officer. I drove up. I said, “I can't.” They said, “It's really important.” So I drove up. I sat down in the room with Sandy and John, and they said they wanted to make a few changes. There were 3 of them, and they said, “We want to make this person in charge of that.”
I said, “Okay.” That didn't make sense to me. The second one was that they wanted to make someone in charge of the global investment bank, which I was running. I thought it was another stupid decision. And the third was that they said they wanted me to resign. I said, “Okay.”
At that moment, I knew it was all arranged. The board had voted, the press release was written, and the management team was coming up. So I waited for the management team to come up. I wished them the best. I said, “You guys have a chance to build one of the great companies.” They all thanked me. Sandy said, “You want to do the—”
I went home and went to see my kids. One of my daughters is here, too. They were like 12, 14, 12, and 10. I walked in the front door and told them I was fired.
The youngest one said, “Daddy, do we have to sleep on the streets?” I said, “No, we're okay.” The middle one, who was always obsessed with college for some reason, said, “Can I still go to college?” I said, “Yeah.” And the one who was here, who was the oldest one, said, “Great. Since you don't need a job, can I have your cell phone?”
That night, about 50 people came over—all the same people I'd just met, the entire management team—bringing whiskey. It was like having your own wake. There's one really tall guy who came in, a very good friend of mine. He looks at my daughter, and my daughter looks up at him and says, “Who are you?” He says, “I used to work for your daddy.” She says, “Not anymore, you don't.”
That was it. I was okay. I tell people it was my net worth, not my self-worth, that was involved.
For anyone who doesn't already know Jamie's story, you were the rising star. Citi was the biggest bank. You were the heir apparent. This was unfathomable, and for you to take it this gracefully says a lot.
You're sort of wandering in the woods, as best as I can reconstruct it, for about 18 months. Is that right? Figuring out what's next?
Yeah. It took me a while to exit, sign agreements, and get out. They were kind of mean. Then I stepped into an office, and it was late. We went for a nice, long vacation and stuff like that.
When I got back in September, so that was 6 months later, I went to my office. I started going to work. I had nothing to do, but I went from 2:00 to 9:00 to 5:00 and started calling people and thinking about what I was going to do. It was in the Seagram Building, so I could go for lunch downstairs every day.
Four Seasons?
At the Four Seasons. I explored everything. I started my own merchant bank.
I could have retired just teaching, just investing, but I was 42.
And you took a call about running Amazon, right? You took a call about running Amazon, didn't you?
I went to visit Jeff Bezos, who was looking for a president at the time. He and I hit it off. We've been friends ever since. He's an exceptional human being. But it was like a bridge too far, even though that movie had just come out, “When Harry Met Sally.” I was thinking, “My God, I'll never wear a suit again. I'm going to live in a houseboat.” Yeah, this would be really great.
What an alternate universe we'd be living in.
It would have been an alternate universe, but I'm still good friends with Jeff, so I got at least one good thing out of it.
And then I got serious. I was offered jobs to run other big global investment banks. Hank Greenberg, who ran AIG, called me up and said, “You should come join us.” I was thinking, “I'm going to go from Sandy Weill to you? I mean, I'd have my head examined to do something like that.” I didn't know the AIG story.
Well, that happened years later, too.
2. Choosing Bank One
Then I got a phone call from a headhunter about Bank One. I was also—you guys, a lot of you probably know Ken Langone, Bernie Marcus, and Arthur Blank, who ran Home Depot. My wife and I loved them. But at my first dinner with them, I went to see them in Atlanta and said, “I have to make a confession. Until you guys called, I'd never been in a Home Depot.”
We were actually wondering. David and I were debating.
My friend made me go up there and get some equipment and plants and stuff like that. But I loved their culture and their attitude. They wanted me to do it. Ken Langone says, “I still should have gotten you. I wasn't going to pay you enough.” Of course, it had nothing to do with anything like that.
I had Bank One, but Bank One was my habitat. I was used to financial services and banking. It wasn't quite global. It was a little global at the time. It was a troubled bank, and I decided that life is what you make it. It was hard on my family. We had to move. I think the kids were 14, 12, and 10 or something like that. It's hard for anyone who's going to move kids.
For context on Bank One for folks who are not familiar, it's not in New York. It's a large bank, but it's a troubled bank.
Yeah. It's based in Chicago.
David, it's a $30 market-cap bank. Citigroup, where you had just been before, was a $200 billion bank.
$21 billion at the time, because it had done a split. If you look back, it was more like $20 billion or something like that. Citi was $200 billion, but I didn't worry about that. I was like, in life, you make things what they are. I don't like complaining about spilled milk. You put on your pants, you get going, you see what you can make out of it.
It sounds like you had opportunities to stay in New York to run bigger, more glamorous things.
One, I was going to run the company. The other ones would have been investment banks. I didn't really trust some of the people who were talking to me about that. There was a whole bunch of other stuff that I explored. I took phone calls from some small companies and some big companies. There were a couple of subprime mortgage companies who called me, and I was like, “Absolutely not.”
We'll get to that.
So I just thought this was a chance. If the family was willing to move, we got a nice place. It took us a while. We had to live in a rental for a while, but we got a nice brownstone, and we ended up loving Chicago. Chicago's a wonderful city in a lot of different ways. I guess it is what you make it. I put half my money in the stock at the time.
I was going to be the captain of the ship. I was going to go down with the ship. I made it clear to everyone I was here permanently, and it would be what it would be, so I got to work literally the next day.
Did we do the math right that, right before you joined Bank One, you bought $60 of stock?
I did.
I've never heard of someone taking a CEO job and saying, “I'm going to invest half my net worth in this company now.”
I thought it might be overvalued a little bit, because people thought it might be sold or something like that, but I didn't care about that. If you work at a company and the new CEO comes in from out of town, you're going to have a lot of shareholders, and I knew a lot of the shareholders. I was going to know a lot of the shareholders. I wanted them to know I was 100%—lock, stock, and barrel.
There was no question I would never sell that stock. I was going to go down with the ship or go up with the ship. They also saw me as making decisions that I thought were right for the long-term health of the company, and I wasn't doing it for a short-term type of thing.
So what did you find when you got there? Day 1 on the job, you start investigating. Was it better or worse than you thought, or about the same?
There had been an analyst called Mike Mayo who had done a report. I remember one of the great lines in the report: “Even Hercules couldn't fix it.”
It had been an amalgamation of Bank One, First Chicago, and National Bank of Detroit. They'd never put the companies together, so they had multiple statement systems, processing systems, payment systems, and SAP systems. They had different brands and services coming down. We were losing accounts. They were closing branches. It was a mess. It was all of it—systems, people, and operations.
But again, I met the management team. It's hard. I walked in and met 6 of the directors. There were 21 directors. 11 hated the other 10.
Wait, wait, wait. There were 21 board members?
21 board members from the merged multiple acquisitions. They were tribal. They ended up hating each other. I knew that when I went in, because I knew people, and I spoke to a lot of people and did research in the bank.
But again, in life, you get handed these things. It's not perfect. Even today, people want to be handed something perfect. It's not perfect.
When I got offered the job, I shook all their hands. I told them I would do the best I could. I'm going to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth—the good, the bad, the ugly. We're going to try to build a great company. I'm going to need your help. Then they left.
Now I'm on the executive floor, and I don't even know where to go. I knocked on someone's door—the head of HR—and said, “I do need an office, and I really need an assistant.” They were going to give me the chairman's office in the corner. I said, “No, no. I want to be right in the middle, so I can see people when I stick my head out.”
Then I went to meet the management team. They put them all in this conference room with nice white plush carpets. I walked in with a cup of coffee, and they said, “Jamie, we don't drink coffee here, for obvious reasons.” So I looked at them. I had the coffee. I looked at them and said, “You do now.”
Then I started meeting with them all, and the systems were terrible. The company was losing money. I didn't know all the businesses really well, so the credit card company had collapsed. That's probably the business I knew the least. But again, that didn't matter to me. I was going to try to fix it. It had some good assets and things like that. I rolled up my sleeves and went to work.
As we were chatting a couple of weeks ago in preparing for this, we asked you, in the context of JPMorgan, what the critical things in your mind were that had made JPMorgan what it is. The first thing you said was risk—the culture around risk and the way you treat risk. When you got to Bank One, I think this is where you first started putting into practice the culture around risk. What was the risk culture at Bank One, and how did you change it?
3. Building Risk Discipline
By management of risk. I've always been very risk-conscious. Risk-conscious does not mean getting rid of risk. It means properly pricing it and understanding the potential outcomes.
When I got there, I started meeting people and going through everything. I quickly realized that Bank One had more U.S. corporate credit risk than Citibank did. The way they accounted for it was unbelievably aggressive. They had less capital, less reserves, less of this. They were calling these things profitable. They were basically losing money.
Loans are a big part of the business. You have to be very careful about the credit business. Once I found that out, I panicked a little bit. I went through every single loan in the books. I marked them all down, put up more reserves, told the board about it, and then wanted to earn more revenue per dollar of risk.
For example, in the middle-market business, for every loan, we had about 80 cents of net interest income and 20 cents of other revenue.
Income from the non-banking business?
Income from the loan, and 20 cents of other revenue, like payments. By the time we merged with JPMorgan, we had 40% net interest income from the loan and 60% non-interest revenue from other types of things, like payments. In one, you're being paid for the risk, and in one, you're being paid little for the risk.
I always stress-tested, and I showed the board that if we ever had a recession—and we're about to have one—how much money we'd lose in credit.
So, I hired a woman called Linda Bammann, who said, “Okay, if you’re going to let me do credit, you’re going to let me sell loans.” I said, “Yes.” “Are you going to let me hedge loans?” “Yes.” “Can I do $10 billion?” I said, “Yes.” She said, “Okay, I’ll join.”
We probably reduced the balance sheet by $50 billion, because then we did have a recession, but we were kind of okay by then. With one big bad one, which was United Airlines, which went bankrupt, and we basically owned it for a small period of time.
There seems to be a fundamental Jamie Dimonism, which is: don’t blow up. A lot of other people have gotten decent at pricing risk, but everyone else seems willing to get closer to the line than you. Where did you develop this “don’t blow up at all costs” philosophy?
Yeah. Around risk, there’s always this ecosystem. You always hear it: “Everyone’s doing it. Everyone’s okay. This is going to work. This time is different.” History teaches you a lot, and I always say, if you read it, you learn a lot.
My dad was a stockbroker, so I bought my first stock when I was 14. In 1972, the stock market hit 1,000. It hit 1,000 in 1968, and I was already helping a little bit with stuff. By 1974, it was down 45%. All the limousines on Wall Street were gone, and restaurants were closing.
Markets move violently. Then we had kind of a recovery in 1980 and had a recession. In ’82, you had a recession. In ’82, it was lower than it had been in 1968, and it hit 800.
In 1987, the market was down 25% in 1 day. In 1990, all these banks—JPMorgan, Citi, Chase, and Chemical—were all taken to their knees by real estate losses. They were all worth about $1 billion. I think Citi was $3 billion at the time, and the other ones were about $1 billion.
Then you had the 1997, also real-estate-related thing. You had the 2000 internet bubble, and then you had the Great Financial Crisis. If you go through history, there are tons of these things.
Andrew Ross Sorkin is in here, and I just read his book. He was nice enough to send it to me: 1929: Inside the Greatest Crash in Stock Market History—and How It Shattered a Nation. Man, history does rhyme. Too much leverage, too much risk. Everyone thinks it’s going to be great. No one thinks it’s going to go down a lot.
That stock market went down 20% 1 year, 30% the next year, and 20% the next year. At 1 point, it was down 90%. It happens.
It seems like your philosophy is that the worst thing will happen, so just plan for it. Don’t say, “Oh, we’re good as long as this crazy, insane, four-sigma event doesn’t happen.” You’re like, “No, that will happen, and it happens often.”
Yeah. When I look at it, I always ask—for example, when I do stress testing or risk for high yield—what’s the worst? I remember getting to JPMorgan and going through the risk books. Their stress test was that the high-yield credit spread would move 40%. At the time, it was at 400 or whatever it was. That means 560.
I said, “No, our stress test is going to be worst ever.” Worst ever was 17%. They said, “That’ll never happen again. The market’s more sophisticated.” Well, in ’08, it hit 20%, and you couldn’t have sold a bond. There was no market.
The point isn’t that you’re trying to guess. The point is you can handle these events, so you continue to build your business. I always look at what I call the fat tails and manage so that we can handle all the fat tails—not just the stress test the Fed gives us, but all the fat tails.
Markets down 50%, interest rates up to 8%, credit spreads back to their worst ever. Of course, your results will be worse, but you’re there.
The thing about financial services is that leverage kills you. Aggressive accounting can kill you, which a lot of companies do. And also, confidence: if you lose money as a financial company, I always knew this, too, people read the headlines. If they’re relying on putting their money with you, they look at that differently.
So, they lose trust. And that’s what causes you to see runs on banks, and you saw some recently, because people run and take their money out.
There’s a thing that you just said, which is that you might do worse, but you’re there. There’s this trade-off that you make where you’re less profitable in the short term, but at least you stick around.
If you look back at the companies that you’ve run—the big one, JPMorgan Chase—is that true in the good years? Were you actually less profitable than those who were more risk-on?
Yeah, a little bit. You’re saying that if you look at the history of banks from up until 2007, a lot of banks were earning 30% return on equity. Most of them went bankrupt. We never did that much. In ’08 and ’09, we were fine, and they weren’t.
You want to build a real, strong company with real margins, real clients, conservative accounting, where you’re not relying on leverage. It’s very easy to use leverage to jack up returns in any business, but in banking, it could be particularly dangerous.
It seems like a core part—if not the entirety—of this, distilled into your operating strategy, is the fortress balance sheet.
Yeah.
When did you first hear about the fortress balance sheet?
I’ve been talking about it—I go way back to Primerica. I used to talk about that: you’re going to be able to survive the tough times. Probably the 1990s. Like I said, I grew up with my father, and I went through those market events. I remember how hard it was on people on Wall Street.
The fortress balance sheet is that you run a company serving clients well, you have good margins, good liquidity, and good capital. I’m as conservative in accounting as you can find. I don’t front-load profits when I can spread them over time.
Accounting—you know, accountants hate it when I say this—you can drive a truck through accounting rules. In accounting itself, certain things are considered expenses, but they’re good. They’re an investment for the future, but they’re called an expense.
Then revenues: if I make bad loans, they are bad revenues. They will kill you, but for a while they look pretty good. So, it’s all those things—margins, clients. In the banking business, the character of the clients you have will be reflected in your bank.
The first thing is who you’re doing business with, how you’re doing business, and also making sure your compensation plans aren’t paying people for stuff that is stupid or unethical. You always have to review these things to make sure you have them right, because they change all the time.
All right, David, catch us up to the merger. You ran Bank One for 4 years from Chicago. Then, in 2004, you merged with JPMorgan Chase in what was termed at the time a merger of equals. I think JPMorgan Chase referred to it as that. Bank One shareholders got 42% of the combined company. I mean, I think people don't realize how much of JPMorgan Chase is Bank One today.
4. Merging With JPMorgan
That's what I said. It's a little irritating when they say, “You've been running it since ’07.” I was running JPMorgan—I was running 40% of the company the whole time.
When I got to Bank One, I was working around the clock, but I already knew that a logical strategic merger might be JPMorgan. I knew all these companies, and that's the other thing about a fortress balance sheet: You also have real strategies that survive the test of time. You're not flipping and flopping.
Then, of course, the tape comes: “JPMorgan Chase to merge.” We were worth around $25 billion; they were worth around $80 billion or $90 billion, or whatever the number was. I'm like, “Well, there goes that dream.” But 4 years later, our stock was up—doubled or something like that. The stock had actually come in, and it was in the target range. I'd been meeting with Bill Harrison, the current chairman of JPMorgan at the time. We were talking about it, and we both knew it made business sense. They were looking for a CEO, so we had been talking for probably a year and a half before that about them looking for a CEO.
Did they give Bank One shareholders 42% because they were looking for a CEO?
There were 2 lawsuits. So, we got the premium. They got the name and the location, and I effectively had kind of control from day 1 because, inside the merger agreement—and this is almost unheard of—when we got the premium, to not have me become CEO 18 months later, 75% of the board would have to vote me out.
The default was that you were going to become CEO. The board was 8 Bank One people and 8 JPMorgan people. I knew a lot of the JPMorgan board members, too, who respected me, and Bill Harrison and I were very close. But that was the agreement.
They got sued for paying too much to buy me. I got sued for not taking enough. You get sued; you can't win at these things. But it worked out.
Yeah. All right. Before we get to 2006, when you were going through that process—and even maybe the couple of years before, when you and Bill were talking and starting to think about JPMorgan as a partner—I'm curious: Did the brand, did the name JPMorgan, factor into your thinking at all? Did you view that as an asset?
I mean, the JPMorgan brand is a Tiffany name.
I didn't value it in the deal. What I looked at was this: I think the first thing is, run your company well. People thought I was going to start doing deals immediately. I was like, “No, we suck. We haven't earned the right to run someone else's company yet. When we're running a good company, we can merge with somebody.”
The first thing I looked at was business logic. We had a consumer business; they had a consumer business. We had a credit card business; they had a credit card business. They were both terrible. They had a big investment bank; we had a big U.S. corporate bank that needed some of those investment-banking services. We both had a wealth-management business. I knew we could save a lot of costs. So, the business logic was pretty impeccable.
Then there's the ability to execute. Can you actually get it done? Because you've all seen a lot of deals where they fall apart. They don't have management, they don't consolidate the systems, or they have infighting, as kind of happened at Citi. And so, you don't effectuate it.
Then there's the price. I knew we had a Tiffany brand, but I didn't value it, because if everything else didn't work out, I don't think it would have mattered that much.
Interesting. All right, so I'm going to fast-forward a couple of years. It's 2006. You're officially chairman and CEO of the combined JPMorgan Chase. And 2006 on Wall Street is go, go, go, baby. It's like the 1980s all over again.
I think you had the same incentives as everybody else, but you behaved very differently. Am I missing something? Did you have the same incentives, or did you pull JPMorgan back hard on the risk side in 2006?
5. Seeing the Crisis Early
There were cracks out there in 2006. You may remember the quants—there started to be a quant problem in late 2006. We definitely saw subprime getting bad, and so I pulled back on subprime. I wish I'd done more, because if you look at what I did, you say, “Okay, well, you had saved half the money, but you would have saved more.” You still lost some money.
But we also had less—maybe a third of the leverage of the big investment banks—and a lot more liquidity. So, in 2006, I started to stockpile liquidity. Looking at the situation, I was quite worried.
The leverage, because of accounting rules and Basel III Basel I, went from 12 times leverage to 35 times leverage for investment banks, particularly the big investment banks. It was go, go. For every $1 you were putting in, you had bridge loans—the whole thing. In ’07, the bridge book of Wall Street was $450 billion. Today it's $40 billion. JPMorgan can take on the whole $40 billion today, though we're not at $40 billion today.
There were much more leveraged deals, and a lot of them fell apart and collapsed. That was before you had the collapse in the mortgage markets, which really took down a lot of these banks.
But you did have the same incentives, and you had the same access to information that a lot of these other folks did, but you didn't blow up. What explains this? Because usually behavior follows incentives.
Well, first of all, if you work for me, I would tell you, I don't care what the incentive is: Don't do the wrong thing. And don't do the wrong thing to a client. Treat yourself—if you're the client, how would you want to be treated?
I'd gotten rid of—I mentioned that one risk thing. There were multiple risk things like that. They were being paid to take the risk.
You were telling us about the auto-loan business.
Yeah, but they were being paid. The second I put in all these new risk controls, all of a sudden you weren't making money by taking that leverage, because I was looking at how much capital could actually be deployed if things got bad. I was looking at earnings through the cycle.
Very importantly, all of these investment banks were doing side deals—private deals, 3-year deals, 5-year deals. I got rid of almost all of them. This was for compensation for senior bankers.
So, today at JPMorgan Chase, there are no—you know, we do do things, and I know some of my partners are in the room here, but we all know about it. There are no winks, there are no nods, and there are no side deals. There's almost no one paid on a particular thing, because if you're paid on a particular thing, you can do the wrong thing while not helping the company manage its risk or something like that.
We changed the incentive programs, and I'm quite conscious about incentive programs—that they don't create misbehavior. But it's also very important: If you're in a company and you say the incentive program is doing that, you should tell the company, “This incentive plan is not incentivizing the right behavior” versus the customer.
A lot of it was leverage. If you look at the leverage in some of these securitization books and mortgage books, if you have 30 times leverage and you're getting 20% of the profits, you'll go to 40 times leverage. It literally will add 25% to your bonus. So, I got rid of the 20% profit pool and the leverage. I lost some people, too, in the meantime.
JPMorgan, as part of the system, had the same incentives, but you changed the incentives for the team within the company.
Okay. All right. We've got to go to 2008. March 13, 2008—a Thursday. Thursday night, you get a call from the Bear Stearns CEO. The stock closed that day at $57 a share. It was like $150 a couple of months before. Three days later—you've got to remember it like yesterday—I remember that night: $2 a share, and you're buying Bear Stearns. Tell us the story.
6. The Bear Stearns Rescue
I was at Avra on 47th Street with my parents, my parents' favorite restaurant. My whole family was there. It happened to be my birthday. I don't normally get emergency calls.
Alan Schwartz, who was the current CEO—we'd seen their stock go down. I knew they had some real problems because we saw their hedge funds and some of the things that were taking place there. He said, “Jamie, I need $30 tonight before Asia opens.”
To which I said, “I don't know how to get $30 billion for you. Have you called Paulson? Have you called Tim Geithner?” So, we all called. I called up the management team. I went back in, probably had a bite, and said goodbye. I went back to the office.
We probably had 100 people come in that night. They all got dressed and went back to work because it was an emergency. We now rang all the bells for an emergency.
Bear Stearns went bankrupt. I spoke to the Fed about, “Let's just get them to the weekend.” We had 1 day, and we needed a Saturday and Sunday, and we concocted this loan.
We couldn't lend the $30 billion, and the Fed technically couldn't lend the $30 billion. But the Fed could lend to us, technically, and I could technically use the collateral of Bear Stearns. So, we got the literally 1-day loan. Then, the next day, we had thousands of people come and do due diligence, and we went through every loan, every asset, every balance sheet, all the derivatives, all the lawsuits, and all the HR policies.
It was like real due diligence in a 2- or 3-day period, and we bought the company that night at $2 a share. Hank Paulson was saying, “Why are you paying anything for it?” I said, “Well, I do have to get shareholder votes.” I did have to get shareholder votes because it was a public deal.
The worst part of it is, I was going to get the lawsuits from the Bear holders. And I knew that. But we couldn’t let it go bankrupt. It wasn’t like an industrial company—you can buy it in bankruptcy and it would be gone. The crisis would have just unfolded.
Okay. Two questions. One, what would have happened if it went down? Two, afterward, did you think it was over?
No. That was March. You know what happened with Lehman: It was an uncontrolled failure. There was money locked up everywhere. People panicked; they started pulling money out of everything. That would have happened with Bear.
So it did stop that, and I would have thought that it gave other people time to clean up their act. Literally 6 months later, I would have thought some of these other firms would have had more liquidity and more capital and been a little bit more prepared for what might be happening.
We already had the stress in the system, which you saw already. It was going to mount; it wasn’t going to go away. There were tremendous losses coming. So we bought it, and it probably did help, but in hindsight, it didn’t stop the crisis from unfolding.
We bought it, and then about a week later, we changed it to $10 a share. It had been at $120. The way to think of it is, it was $300 billion of assets and a $12 billion tangible book value. We wrote off the whole tangible book value when we bought the company.
To pay for it, we had to liquidate the loans, hedge stuff, and cover severance costs and lawsuit costs. We basically used all that. So we paid $1 billion for a company that had been worth $20 billion recently. The building we’re in now was worth $1 billion on the balance sheet, and we got it for zero.
We got some very good people, and we got some good businesses, but it was an extremely painful process.
I’ve seen estimates that, in the fullness of time, after really dealing with unwinding all the stuff there, it cost you $15 billion to $20 billion.
It cost us $20 billion anyway. It was the $12 billion we wrote off. That didn’t cost us—we didn’t really pay for it. And then the government sued us on the mortgages, which I was quite offended by. I really was. I thought it was a terrible thing.
But this is the government. Whatever government you did a deal with, that’s not the government down the road that decides, “I don’t care. We’re going to come after you anyway.” So while we kind of saved the system and bailed a lot of people out, they made us pay $5 billion on the bad mortgages that Bear Stearns had done.
That’s what made me say I wouldn’t do it again. Put it this way: I wouldn’t really trust the government again.
I’ve got to ask a follow-up question to that. Is that a structural thing, just the way that we’re set up with a new administration every 4 years?
Yeah. They don’t feel obligated to what the prior administration did. Contracts—even some contracts were violated in this thing, which I won’t go through. Literally, contracts. It would have been tortious interference had it been company to company.
But since you operate under their laws, they can basically take you down. I went to see Eric Holder trying to settle all this mortgage stuff, which we settled. I brought my lead director. He expected me to come in and be pounding my chest, and I went in and said, “Eric, I am here to surrender. I cannot fight and I cannot win against the federal government. You know that a criminal indictment can sink my company. I will not do that to my company or my country. I’m here to surrender.”
Before I surrendered, I wanted him to know the circumstances by which we bought WaMu and Bear Stearns, because 80% of what they were asking for related to Bear Stearns and WaMu, not JPMorgan Chase. I went through the whole thing. He said, “Thank you. I’ll take it into consideration.”
But they never gave me the accounting, so I don’t know what they did. It is what it is. It was quite painful, but you’ve got to move on.
We’ll move on from this. We’ll move on from the specifics. I do have one more thing. Whether you would have done it again wasn’t very clear. It was not a great deal on paper for JPMorgan. But as we look at it now, the reputational value—the reputation of JPMorgan now is unlike any other in the industry.
Part of why you’re worth $800 billion is that reputation. A lot of what created that reputation was that weekend.
Yeah. If the government called me up again and said, “We need your help to save our country,” of course I’m going to help. I’m a patriot that way. I’d just try to come up with some ways to avoid the punishment by the next president. I would come up with something.
You need, like, a version of the merger agreement with JPMorgan Chase where 75% of Congress needs to vote not to sue you, and the default is that you’re not going to get sued.
All right. All right. So Bear Stearns happens. 6 months later, you get another phone call: WaMu is going under. You do buy WaMu. Contrary to everything we’re talking about with Bear, WaMu was actually a great acquisition, right?
7. Buying WaMu Clean
Yeah. So this is a legitimate acquisition. It was very hard. Remember, we bought WaMu a week after Lehman went bankrupt, and most boards wouldn’t have touched that at all because the whole system was in trouble.
But WaMu put us in California, parts of Nevada, Georgia, and Florida, which we weren’t in. Think of these really healthy states. They had 2,300 branches, and they had huge mortgage problems. But we had looked at it over and over and over, so we knew their mortgage books cold and we wrote it off.
We bought it for $30 billion, discounted tangible book value, because they had debt, and we left the debt behind. That $30 billion was approximately what the mortgage loss was going to be. So we bought the company—think of it, we bought a company clean. We wrote off all that stuff. The books were clean.
Then we did something unheard of, too. The next day or 2 days later, I went in the market and raised another $11 billion of equity, which I didn’t really need. But again, this is my conservatism. I was like, “You know what? This could get even worse, and I don’t want to be short capital or liquidity.”
So we raised that to make sure our balance sheet was just as strong after WaMu as it was before WaMu.
And you already had the reputation to pull this off, right? I’m imagining, in the worst month of the financial crisis, who can go out and raise $11 billion of equity?
Yeah. People trust you. We knew a lot of the shareholders, and you earn your trust over time with shareholders. We gave them a quick little presentation, and a lot of them stepped up and said, “This is great.”
They also knew we could execute it, because behind Bear Stearns, people forget the work is the next day. You’ve got 50,000 people consolidating 5,000 applications, branches, compensation programs, settlement programs, payment systems. It’s a lot of work.
But we obviously have the capability to do that, and we had the capability to do WaMu. I think we finished the WaMu consolidations in 9 months, all of them. Within 9 months, they were all on the same systems, which allows you to start doing a better job on customer service and things like that.
So this fortress-balance-sheet strategy—raising this equity capital, having additional margin of safety, and conservative accounting—in retrospect, it seems like the obvious right strategy for running a large financial institution. Why wasn’t everyone else copying it? Have people changed, and does everyone else run their banks like this now?
I think people are more conservative today. I think regulators are more conservative today. But again, I go back to the fact that people get involved in aggressive accounting. They don’t look at stressing their own bank in a real way.
You saw people take too much interest-rate risk, too much credit exposure, too much optionality risk. Or sometimes it’s new products. If you look at financial services, very often it’s the new products that blow up. It takes a while; they haven’t been through a cycle.
You had that with equities way back in 1929. You had it with options. You had it with equity derivatives. You had it with mortgages. You had it with Ginny Mae—even Ginny Mae’s at one point blew up, even though they’re government-guaranteed. Arguably, you had it with quant and with LTCM.
It happened with quant. It happened with leveraged lending. Then people become more rational about how they run these balance sheets and how they think through the risk. So I have to ask you: Is this private credit today?
I don’t really think so. I don’t think it’s $2 trillion. It’s grown rapidly; that’s an issue. But the other thing about markets is that there are some very good actors in it who know what they’re doing. Customers like the product.
But there are also people who don’t know what they’re doing.
And it's grown rapidly. There may be something in there that would become a problem one day. I don't think it's systemic. The mortgage market, when it blew up, was, I'm going to say, $9 trillion, and $1 trillion was lost. And $1 trillion was also more than $1 trillion back then.
A lot of these private credits are not leveraged like that. But that doesn't mean there won't be problems; it's slightly different. You've got to look at the whole system. There are other things out there that are leveraged that can cause problems. Of course, people will take secret leverage in a way you don't necessarily see it.
What are some of these, in your mind, that are potentially problematic today?
Well, look, when you look at asset prices, they're rather high. Now, I'm not saying it's bad, but if today's PEs were 15 as opposed to 23, I'd say that's a lot less risk. There's a lot less to fall, and you have some upside. I would say at 23, there's not a lot of upside and there's a long way to fall. That's true with credit spreads.
We look at it, and we stress-test everything. We do, like, 100 stress tests a week to make sure we can handle a wide variety of things. The other thing, and the biggest risk to me, is cyber. I think this cyber stuff is—we're very good at it. We work with all the government agencies. They would say that at JPMorgan Chase, we spend $800 million a year or something on it. We educate people; we just do.
But you're talking about grids and communications companies and water, and even part of the military establishment. The protections are not what we need if we ever get in any kind of war where cyber is involved. China is very good at it, and so is Russia, but Russia's mostly criminal, which is slightly different.
All right. I'm going to pull us back to the story. We're going to fast-forward to 2023. We're not really equipped to talk about Russia. It's not what we do on Acquired, but Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic both fail. You're there again. Did you see it coming? What lessons did you learn from how 2008 went that you could apply in 2023? Obviously, you bought First Republic.
Yeah. Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic both did some very good stuff. But they both had something unique that we didn't know at the time. I'm going to call them concentrated deposits—not uninsured, because people are misstating that—concentrated. They also had a lot of venture capital.
What happened to Silicon Valley Bank and, kind of, First Republic is that some of these large venture capital companies—there are hundreds of them, maybe 1,000—told their constituent clients, whom they had invested in and who all banked at Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic, that the banks weren't safe and to get out. Silicon Valley Bank, I think, had $200 billion in deposits, and $100 billion left in 1 day. That caused the problem, but they also had other problems.
They didn't have proper liquidity. They didn't have their collateral posted at the Fed. They had taken too much interest-rate exposure, and that interest-rate exposure was hidden by accounting. It was called held to maturity, where you don't have to mark even Treasuries to market. I always hated held to maturity because it gives you better regulatory returns and stuff like that.
When you looked at that held-to-maturity portfolio, if you said, "What's the tangible book value of one of these banks?" you said it was 100. Well, all of a sudden, it was 50 if you just marked that one thing to market. Now you're into judgment land. At what point, if you saw a bank where just that one mark had the tangible book value drop to 40 or 30 cents on the dollar, would you panic? I would have said, "That's too much risk."
The regulators helped us because they said rates were going to stay low forever. These banks bought a lot of 3% mortgages. When rates went up to 5%, those 3% mortgages were worth 60 cents on the dollar or 50 cents. And that was it. Both of those banks took too much interest-rate exposure. It was known to management, and it was known to the regulators. It was unfixable.
We knew a little bit about Silicon Valley Bank. We were trying to compete in that area, so we learned a lot afterward about how to do a better job for that ecosystem of venture capital. We have a whole campus in Palo Alto now. We hired 500 innovation bankers. We cover venture capital companies. We're not as good as they are yet, but we're going to get there because we're organized slightly differently.
We knew First Republic. We were watching it. I called Janet Yellen, and I said that company's in trouble, and 1 or 2 others. "If you want to, we'll take a look. We could probably buy it and eliminate the problem." They waited a little bit too long. It's kind of a little melting ice cube. But you can imagine, the day we bought it, you never heard about it again.
We hedged all their exposures in a couple of days. We merged everything. We wrote everything down. But we did get some good stuff from it. We actually got some good people. The normal thing in an acquisition is, "They're terrible, get rid of them," or, "They failed." But we also looked at what they did and how they dealt with clients. Some of you may be clients here. They did a great job with high-net-worth clients: single point of contact and concierge services.
Now, if you go down Madison Avenue, you see things called J.P. Morgan Financial Center. That's your first J.P. Morgan-branded consumer effort, right?
Yes, because it's kind of based on that. When you walk in there, we know your small business, we know your mortgage, and we know your consumer banking. We can get you travel. We can do a whole bunch of different stuff. We're providing very high-level services.
I think we have 20 of them now. But I love it. If it works, in 20 years we'll have 300. These things are opportunities, and I hope it works. You don't always know they're going to work for a fact, but so far, so good.
All right, so we're effectively caught up to today. Now we've got the whole story, and we've got a lot of context. Obviously, we didn't go into every detail. But if we're trying to answer the question, how did you separate from the pack? Why did you become a completely different animal from your whole competitive set? What are the things in your mind that led to this success?
8. The JPMorgan Operating System
Well, I don't know totally. First of all, we skipped over strategy a little bit. This is important for you all: what we do is the same thing that a community bank does, other than global investment banking.
If you walk into a small community bank, they know your business account, they know your consumer account, and they usually have a trust company. They used to call it trust. They'd manage your private affairs, set up a trust for you, and do stuff like that. Their CRM is up here. They don't need a Salesforce CRM because they know everyone in town. They didn't do big-time global investment banking.
But the strategy is that those businesses fit together. They feed each other, and so does investment banking. A lot of our middle-market clients use investment-banking products. A lot of our consumer clients use some FX. All of our businesses feed each other. There's nothing extraneous. We got rid of everything that didn't fit a strategy.
Then you start building client businesses and client services: fortress balance sheet, fortress accounting, all those various things. I've always talked about it as holding a portfolio of things that actually feed each other.
Fit. Whereas Citi had consumer finance—that didn't fit. Life insurance—that didn't fit. Property and casualty—that didn't fit. They eventually got rid of them all. Sandy just wanted to do more of them. He bought American General, which did truck leasing, for God's sake. Once you get involved in these things, it's hard for people to understand the risk in each one of these businesses.
But all of ours fit. I don't like hobbies. I don't like things. We've made plenty of mistakes because you have to try and test things. And then you're always investing for the future.
That investment is always people, branches, and technology. And that's true whether it's investment banking people or consumer bank people, or opening consumer branches. I think Doug Petno is here, and Troy Rohrbaugh, who run the global investment bank, but they've opened commercial banking branches all over Europe. And I think you're telling me—it's going great. It's feeding all the other parts of the company.
So, just sticking to your knitting, constantly investing, not overreacting to the market. Markets are like accordions. Sometimes, if you're strong when others aren't, you have a chance to buy things you want to buy. And then always look at the world from the point of view of the consumer: What do you want? How do you want it? How do you want to get it?
Can we provide it to you in a way that makes sense for us, too? Not going for the last dollar, nothing like that. And building teams of people. Our people are curious and smart. They have heart. They have soul. They give a damn about the guards in the company and the receptionists. It's not just about the big-time bankers and people pounding their chests.
We try not to put up with that. And we have big-time bankers. They are exceptional. But the company serves the clients, and I think the clients know that.
When you really dig in to start analyzing JPMorgan's financials, you see this one thing that jumps right out at you, which is the efficiency ratio. For every dollar that you make, compared to your competitors, you get to keep 15 cents more of that dollar as profit. It's not hard to see how that compounds and how that allows reinvestment. Why is your efficiency ratio so much better than competitors?
It is literally continuously investing and gaining business at the margin, and not stopping and not stop-starting. The thing about margins, too, is that we have that margin while investing a lot. It's much easier to have that margin and just cut billions of dollars of marketing out tomorrow. We can stop opening branches and save 1 billion dollars next year. We could do a lot of things. Your margins will go up. Your growth will go down. Your long-term margins will probably get worse.
So we kind of look right through the cycle, and we look at the actual economics of the accounting of what we do. We've built it over time. We have great people and great products. And there's some secret sauce I'm not going to tell you about.
We do invest today, and we tell everyone everything. I'm sitting there watching them do the presentations, and I'm saying, “Oh God, we're just giving away too many secrets here.” So there are secrets as to why the efficiency ratio is so good.
Howard Schultz was here before, you know, and I'm not supposed to say that, probably.
It's okay. It's okay.
No, but we're glad you invited your friends.
Look what he built over the years. The consistency, the curiosity, the heart, the branch-by-branch products. It's just always doing that, knowing you're going to make mistakes, but building the culture that just kind of plows through that.
And you all know I do use sports. Sports is a great analogy. If you have a sports team with a bunch of real jerks on it, are they going to be a great team? Almost never. If the team members aren't giving it their best every day during practice, you learn from Tom Brady. Every day at practice, he worked hard. If people are not giving their best, how are you going to have a great team? It's not that different in business.
The difference in business is you can BS about it all the time. You can make up stories, but in sports you see it on the playing field. Do they have the talent? Do they play together? They don't even have to be friends. They have to practice and know their teammates.
And so I do think companies have that. It's like a sauce that works. You've seen it in lots of different companies, not just JPMorgan Chase.
So, all right, we've got one last question for you. If you look back to 2008, which was a long time ago now, all of the other leaders that were involved in that era have long since retired. I think many folks within JPMorgan Chase have long since retired. It seems like you're working as hard as ever and in it as much as ever. Why are you still here? What keeps you going?
Yeah. So I want to thank my wife, who was here too, and who suffered through all this with me all these years. I probably couldn't have done it without her.
I don't know. Look, I don't know, but I do believe in it. My grandparents were all Greek immigrants who didn't finish high school. There's a Greek ethic that I don't even realize I learned from my parents, from the ground up. Judy's parents—my wife's parents—were the same: have a purpose.
It could be art, it could be science, it could be the military, it could be business, or it could just be being a great parent or a great teacher. But have a purpose, and then do the best you can. Give it your all. Don't be one of those people who complain all the time. Give it your best, and then treat everyone properly. Everyone.
If there's a bully beating up on someone, you have to stand up for that someone. You are not allowed to let a bully do it. So how you treat people, what you do—in my hierarchy of life, the most important thing is my family. It still is.
The second thing is my country, because I think this country is the indispensable nation that brought freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of enterprise. We have to teach everywhere we go how important it is, because I don't think people fully understand it sometimes.
And then my purpose. My family wants me home every day, and this is my contribution. Through this company, I can help cities, states, schools, companies, and employees. I get the biggest kick out of that. And so that's what I do. As long as I have the energy, I'm going to do it. I can't imagine not doing it.
I don't play golf. One of my daughters said, “Dad, you need some hobbies.” And I said, “I do: hanging out with you, family, travel, barbecuing, and wine. We now like whiskeys.” I love history. I think history is the greatest teacher of all time. Hiking. I can't play tennis anymore because of my back, but those are my hobbies.
I don't buy fancy cars and stuff like that, but this gives me purpose in life beyond family and beyond country. Plus, I think this helps the country. I get to do a lot of things for our country that I just think are quite meaningful from this job.
And so when I'm done with this, I don't know. I'll teach and write. I may write a book like Andrew Ross Sorkin did. I'll do something, but I've got to do something. I'm not going to twiddle my thumbs and smell the flowers.
There are a lot of people who have floated your name for political or policy roles over the years. It is hard—there is only 1 job that could possibly impact the country on a bigger scale than you're currently doing. Do you agree?
Right now, yeah.
Well, that's probably a great place to leave it. Jamie, thank you so much for joining us.
David, Ben, these guys are great, by the way. So thank you.