In short: Passing mention — its commodities team "throwing up their hands" with no oil forecast; RPK calls that "the right answer" in a multivariate system, so watch the signals instead.
9:32would roll. And if the physical markets are weakening, then that will actually really start to change things. Anyone listening to the show may have already heard this, because it was out on Twitter even if they're not getting JPMorgan research, but there was a report that just went around the world about JPMorgan's commodities team basically just throwing up their hands and
In short: Sechan's "haves" in a split bank group (31:12). "The JP Morgans, the Morgan Stanleys, the Goldman Sachs I think are going to do incredibly well in this environment" — deal activity, capital raises and trading-desk volatility; this week's drop was "more of a scare."
In short: Wapner cites BofA's bank note. Hikes give asset-sensitive banks a modest EPS and margin boost, though a flattening curve could challenge the stocks; BofA liked what JPMorgan said at this week's conferences. Terranova also notes a JPMorgan report on heavy bond short positioning.
In short: Passing: listed with Northern Trust and State Street as a big custodian; also the kind of bank whose OTC exposure he flags as the system's opaque leverage risk.
38:04our performance. — And the big custodians of this world, the Northern Trusts, the State Streets, the JP Morgans, what can you offer that they can't offer? What's your pitch to would-be mutual funds or ETFs? — We offer everything that they offer, and as a matter of fact we do it better, because for example our short inventory is available to see online for our customers, and they can not only see what we have but also our lending rates they can see online. So now many people
In short: Contrast only: "Rick and I joke that we can't compete with JPMorgan Chase and they can't compete with us"; big-bank checking pays "0.01" versus Battle Bank's ~3.35%. No view on the stock.
In short: "You're record price to book right now on JP Morgan, on Bank of America" — priced for the Bowman/deregulation bull case that has been known for two years, with the AI-credit exposure not priced at all.
Price-to-book compares a bank's share price to the accounting value of what it owns. JPMorgan and Bank of America are both at record price-to-book — investors have never paid more for a dollar of these banks' assets.
His objection is that the good news justifying that price — a friendly Fed governor, deregulation — "has been out there for 2 years," while the risks are not in the price at all: bond losses, data-center lending, and a wave of investors all leaning the same way.
This is a warning on crowding and valuation rather than a claim that JPMorgan is a bad bank.
36:44And you're record price to book right now on JP Morgan, on Bank of America. Absolutely record price to book and banks have been priced for, they're, everyone knows the bull case. The Trump Michelle Bowman at the Fed and deregulation. This has been out there for 2 years. So everyone on Wall Street is massively long the financials here.
In short: The one explicit short in the episode, already published to his podcast audience: "on the Macro Dirt podcast that I do with Tony Greer, I talked about financials topping a couple weeks ago. I talked about how JP Morgan was a pretty good short." Financials are also one of the three sectors his 50-chart sweep flags as topping, and one of the groups that rallied to fill the gap left by the semis sell-off.
JPMorgan is the largest US bank, and the only name in the episode Dillian describes outright as a short.
The call came out of his manual chart sweep and he had already published it: "on the Macro Dirt podcast that I do with Tony Greer, I talked about financials topping a couple weeks ago. I talked about how JP Morgan was a pretty good short." A "topping" pattern means a long advance that is flattening and beginning to roll over — the mirror image of the bases he sees in Intel and Oracle.
There is a flow argument behind it too. Banks were one of the groups that rallied while semiconductors were being sold, so money rotated into financials as the crowd left tech. In his framework, being the destination of a rotation is a late-cycle condition, not a bullish one.
8:49On the Macro Dirt podcast that I do with Tony Greer, I talked about financials topping a couple weeks ago. I talked about how JP Morgan was a pretty good short. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo all look like they're topping. Healthcare, Johnson and Johnson, and also Nvidia, AMD, couple of other semi names — I'm seeing some charts that are bottoming interestingly enough.
In short: Added to Fundstrat's Tom Lee's updated list of top core stock ideas, and the committee agrees — Terranova owns it, and Simpson: "I agree with him on JP Morgan. Best of breed financial services. I think the awakening of IPOs is not over, and this company is 100% deserving of being on his list." Note the curve backdrop Liz Thomas supplies: the buyback flattens the curve, which is "classically bad for financials" — but "financials have done so well this entire year with a flattening yield curve that I don't think that matters right now. I think this is even bullish for financials because of everything else that is going well."
Fundstrat's Tom Lee added JPMorgan to his list of core stock ideas and the committee agreed without argument — Simpson calls it "best of breed financial services" and points to a specific driver: the reopening of the market for new stock listings. Investment banks earn large fees underwriting IPOs, and he thinks that revival is not over.
There is one technical objection worth understanding, and Liz Thomas raises then dismisses it. Banks classically make money from the gap between short-term and long-term interest rates, so a flatter curve — which is what the Treasury's buyback produces — is usually bad for them. Her answer is empirical: financials have performed strongly all year while the curve flattened, so the textbook relationship is not what's driving them right now; loan growth, capital-markets activity and credit quality are.
In short: Used only to scale a historical failure: the 1873 collapse of Jay Cooke & Co. — the man who bankrolled the Union's Civil War financing and "the John Pierpont Morgan before John Pierpont Morgan" — was "the equivalent of JP Morgan going bankrupt today overnight." Historical analogy, no view.
32:50Which goes to show that these manias look very painful — after the 1871 financial crash when lots of railways went bankrupt, it caused the collapse of a bank called Jay Cooke, which was the equivalent of JP Morgan going bankrupt today overnight. It was catastrophic at the time and it caused what was long called the Great Depression until the actual Great Depression happened, and we now call the downturn in the 1870s the Long Depression.
In short: Raised by the host at/near all-time highs with a market cap approaching $1trn and up ~13% on the year; asked whether the financials keep going, Newton's answer was flat — "I'm overweight the financials. I think they do." He is "very encouraged actually about the financial sector," which "seems to be in a sweet spot right now with the economy."
JPMorgan came up as the poster child for the financials trade — near all-time highs, market value approaching a trillion dollars, up about 13% on the year. Asked directly whether the banks keep going, Newton didn't hedge: "I'm overweight the financials. I think they do."
He didn't make a company-specific argument. The case is the sector case — a steepening yield curve widening the spread between what banks pay for deposits and earn on loans, in an economy that is holding up. Treat this as a positive read on the group with JPMorgan as its largest constituent, rather than a stock-level call.
21:48I believe it's up 20 or 25% on the year. Trading at all-time highs. But, what's your view on the financials here? Do they keep going? — I'm overweight the financials. I think they do. Specifically because of what Warsh's stance [as heard: "war chest stance"] and the Fed's stance towards forward guidance has done to the yield curve and starting to steepen out pretty dramatically in the last few weeks.
In short: "JP Morgan made record highs recently" — one of the money-center banks in Brown's list, in what he calls "one of the hallmarks of the 2026 bull market: how well almost every financial that matters has been acting, and how great the guidance looks. This is one of the most important legs to this [stool]."
In short: Schorr on the big-bank quarter: "My lord, those were some good numbers" — Eisman: "actually stunning." Investment banking +38%, trading +47%, asset & wealth management +7% organic, "expenses very much under check, great positive operating leverage, huge margin improvement, huge ROEs on high capital bases… this is almost as good as it gets." Only spread lending is "more mixed, just okay," with "real competition on the deposit side" pushing cost of funds up. Also his exemplar of the sticky franchise: "you don't just go to a great bank like JP Morgan just to park your cash."
Two roles in this episode. First, Schorr's example of a bank relationship that survives the cash-optimisation threat: "you don't just go to a great bank like JP Morgan just to park your cash" — you go for branches, safety, cybersecurity, investments, research. If AI agents eventually squeeze the free money banks make on idle deposits, the institutions with the most other things to sell you lose the least.
Second, the big-bank quarter, which Schorr calls simply "some good numbers" and Eisman upgrades to "stunning": investment banking up 38%, trading up 47%, wealth management growing 7% organically at record market highs, costs controlled, and high returns on a large capital base. "This is almost as good as it gets."
The caveats are honest ones. The plain lending business — take deposits, lend at a spread — is only "okay," and competition for deposits is pushing the cost of funds up. Trading is seasonally weaker in the second half (historically down 17%), and the investment-banking pipeline now depends on whether AI financing keeps happening. Schorr's counter-rule is worth keeping: trading revenue is made when clients disagree, and with rate cuts priced out, hikes back on the table and a live software debate, "it is a very active environment."
Eisman's closing note is the one to hold onto: "when everything is humming, it's always possibility that tomorrow that's not going to hum." Near-perfect results are not a reason to extrapolate; they are the point of maximum room for disappointment.
46:43Investment banking Great. great. Up 38%. Trading even better, up 47%, right? asset and wealth management, 7% organic growth and markets at all-time highs. So everything going there. I would say the only thing Expenses very much under check, great positive operating leverage, huge margin improvement, huge ROEs on high capital bases. Right. Excess capital.
In short: Cited as the scale marker for the headcount shift: JPMorgan Chase "has more employees in Texas than in New York," home to its new $3 billion-plus headquarters. Part of the 100,000+ financial jobs the Dallas area added in the past decade (now nearly 400,000).
In short: The bank call Haymaker already got right, cited as the template for the regional-bank breakout now forming: "we glowingly highlighted JPM, and its CEO, Jamie Dimon, back in January of 2024 and since then it's been an outstanding performer, more than doubling from ~$170 to $353." JPM is named first among "the mega-banks… [that] broke out a year or two ago (2024, in the case of JPM and C)" — the multi-year range expansion pattern Haymaker says it has now seen "with a plethora of" regional banks after reviewing "literally hundreds of stock charts lately." A scorecard entry and a chart analogue rather than a fresh entry point, but the stance on the name is unambiguously positive.
JPMorgan is the largest US bank, and Hay is scoring his own past call here rather than making a new one. He recommended it in January 2024, praising both the bank and CEO Jamie Dimon, and the stock has since gone from about $170 to $353 — more than a double.
It appears in this piece as the pattern he now sees repeating. JPMorgan and Citigroup broke above years of trading-range ceilings in 2024, Bank of America shortly before; the regional banks are only now producing the same chart shape. In other words, the money-centre banks already did what he expects the regionals to do next, and he has the receipts on having called the first leg.
In short: Banks look expensive — "north of three times price to tangible book" — but "we have no involvement in the banks"; they're tangential to the AI blow-up and have done well.
Chanos says the banks are "tangential" to the AI blow-up this time — they're not the epicenter the way they were in 2008, and they've performed well. He flags that JPMorgan looks a little pricey (more than three times "tangible book value," a conservative measure of net worth), but stresses "we have no involvement in the banks."
In other words: expensive, but not his short.
41:33Some of these historic metrics are getting a little expensive. JP Morgan, for example, north of three times now price to tangible book. — Yeah. We have no involvement in the banks. We are short one of the big private-equity entities that I think is doing lots of stupid things.
In short: At record highs on record bank quarters. Terranova: he tried "to get in front when we were out at the US Open" by buying JPMorgan, anticipating the sentiment/positioning rebuild in financials — and it's playing out; sees the buying spreading to the regionals. Mayo's target goes to $375.
JPMorgan is the largest US bank, and it's at record highs on the wave of record bank earnings. Joe Terranova got ahead of the move — he bought it back "when we were out at the US Open," betting that gloomy sentiment on the banks would rebuild into something much more positive. That's now playing out, and he thinks the buying spreads from the big banks to the regional banks too.
In short: Terranova added JPMorgan over the last month — but he's "a little concerned" that expectations for the money-center banks flipped from low to high in a 30-day span, so he's selective. One of the obvious plays into the bank-earnings kickoff.
Joe Terranova added to JPMorgan over the last month as one of the obvious ways to play the bank-earnings season. His one caveat: expectations for the big "money-center" banks swung from low to high in just 30 days, so he's being selective rather than buying the whole group indiscriminately.
In short: Leads the big-bank earnings this week — "simply put, I think these earnings are going to be really good." Big trading revenue on a highly volatile market, strong credit-card activity ("JP Morgan makes a lot of money from Visa"), and banks "do well with higher interest rates, which have actually held up."
The big banks report this week, and Carlson expects strong results. His reasoning is simple: the market has been very volatile, and banks make a lot of money when trading is heavy (both their own trading desks and the fees from handling clients' trades). They also earn big from credit cards — JPMorgan, for example, "makes a lot of money from Visa" — and banks generally do better when interest rates are higher, which they've stayed. Put together, he thinks "the big banks are going to do well."
18:32Now, going through this week, we also have JP Morgan, we have ASML, and we have TSM. I'll first start off with JP Morgan and the big banks. Simply put, I think these earnings are going to be really good. These companies make a lot of money from trading activity, and the market has been highly volatile.
In short: Held by Josh (with Citizens) and Jim (with Citi): part of the financials group Brown says can grow earnings ~10.7% over the next 12 months at reasonable valuations — earnings growth outpacing share-price growth. Bank earnings kick off next week.
In short: The opening example of the perma-bear pattern — "JP Morgan analysts that have warned and warned and warned again about the market collapse," who then "readjust their warnings to be a couple more years down the road" when wrong.
0:00Perma bears are nothing new. As markets go up, there's always people sounding the alarm and telling the world that the sky is falling. We've seen it all Join Qualtrim, the stock analysis platform I built and use, and join over 13,000 other paying members: https://www.qualtrim.com/ 00:00 Jeremy Grantham Predictions 18:20 Zuckerberg Talks About Meta's Spend 33:40 Fail Of The Week: Polen Capital Collapse -Disclaimer Some of the links below are affiliate links, I can earn money from them at no cost to you. This content is not a solicitation, is not endorsed by M1, and was not reviewed by M1; the opinions expressed are solely those of the authors and do not reflect M1's views. Information presented is accurate as of the video posting date; for the most up-to-date information, please refer to m1.com. Before making any investment decisions, consult your personal investment, legal, and tax advisors, as this content is for informational purposes only and not intended as investment recommendations. ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ Join Here: https://www.qualtrim.com/ 📚 My favorite Investing Books: https://amzn.to/3KwyIhG 📷 All the tech I use to record videos: https://www.amazon.com/shop/josephcar... 🚀 Growth Portfolio: https://click.linksynergy.com/deeplin... 💵 Dividend Portfolio: https://click.linksynergy.com/deeplin... SOCIAL MEDIA ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ 🎥 More free content: / @josephcarlsonshow 🐦 I post random thoughts on Twitter too: / joecarlsonshow DISCLAIMER ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ I am not a professional investor and have never claimed to be. I'm an amateur investor sharing my experience of what I've learned, where I have had success, and where I've had failures. I share my thoughts on investing and performance with transparency. My approach and goal to investing is to buy high-quality long-term investments in world-class businesses that I call "compounders". I view my investments as businesses, not as stocks. Before creating content on YouTube full time I worked as a senior-level programmer for 8 years. Over the years as a programmer, I compounded my knowledge of development. I take the same iterative learning approach to my study of investing. I study investing as a craft in the continual pursuit of being better. I will make mistakes in investment decisions from time to time. Results are not guaranteed. Please do not blindly follow me into any investments, and make sure your portfolio and investments are built around your specific income, risk tolerance, personality, timeline, and overall circumstances. throughout the bull market from many different faces. There's JP Morgan analysts that have warned and warned and warned again about the market collapse.
In short: Up ~11% in a month and raised its dividend after the stress test; named by Talkington as one of the quality money-center banks (with Goldman and BofA) capital is rotating toward, away from the troubled alt-credit names.
In short: Terranova bought last week ahead of quant repositioning into financials; new all-time high $338. Brown: "best stock," only headline is the recurring Dimon-retirement chatter.
In short: "Trading at its highest price-to-book ever" (~2.3× vs a 1.2× 20–30-yr average) on deregulation hopes — "you don't really make money in financials buying that." Also the bank being arm-twisted to buy Treasuries ($300B from Fed reserves).
32:19And that has people buying banks. That's been going on for a long time, like a year and a half. JP Morgan's trading at its highest price to book ever. I don't like that. The last 20, 30 years, it averaged maybe 1.2 times book and it's like 2.3 times book. You don't really make money in financials buying that.
In short: The relative winner so far — "KKR's down 42% and JP Morgan's up 23%" — but the cracks "crack all the way up to the big banks." Also the instrument of financial repression: its reserves at the Fed are down ~$300B, moved into Treasuries because "the Fed and the US Treasury have a gun… pointing at the banks."
JPMorgan is the relative winner in the credit story so far — up 23% while private-credit-exposed KKR is down 42% — but he expects the cracks to "crack all the way up to the big banks," and clients are already positioning short the sector.
It's also the clearest example of "financial repression." The bank's reserves parked at the Fed are down roughly $300 billion, moved into Treasuries. In his telling that isn't a market decision: "the Fed and the US Treasury have a gun… pointing at the banks," pushing roughly a trillion dollars of forced Treasury buying across several years to hold interest rates down. Held-down rates are good for owners of real assets and bad for savers.
24:32KKR's down 42% off the highs. And since say a year and a half, KKR, which is exposed to the credit markets and private credit, down 42% and JP Morgan's up 23%. So, you're already seeing cracks in the foundation, but that's going to crack all the way up to the big banks. So, we're seeing a lot of clients short the financials, either short puts on the XLF.
In short: Used to illustrate "stealth QE": its reserves at the Fed fell from ~$460B to ~$65–80B as banks were force-fed ~$1T of Treasuries — what got gold & silver "going so crazy."
JPMorgan is the largest U.S. bank. He uses it to explain "stealth QE." The government has been quietly forcing banks to buy roughly $1 trillion of Treasury bonds — JPMorgan's cash parked at the Fed fell from about $460 billion to $65–80 billion as it absorbed that debt. That money-printing-by-another-name, he says, is what got gold and silver "going so crazy."
17:35Uh but Bet and Worsh they're close they're both close with Trump and directly Miller what the plan was was that force the banks to buy more treasuries look at JP Morgan's reserves of the Fed they've gone from 460 billion down to like 65s 80 billion so to keep this simple for the audience it's like they're doing QE with the banks and that's what That's this all happened in the first quarter.
In short: Wall Street beneficiary — surged to $16.49B in Q1 earnings (+13% YoY); financing the "New Energy" infrastructure and hedging energy prices makes the big banks the "ultimate winners."
JPMorgan, the largest U.S. bank, posted a massive $16.49 billion in quarterly profit. As the financier and risk-manager for companies navigating the energy shock and building new infrastructure, it's positioned as one of the "ultimate winners" of the Hormuz stalemate in Prins's telling.
In short: Stealth-QE illustration: JPM cut its Fed reserves ~$200B into 2–5yr notes — banks force-fed Treasuries to inject liquidity near the March-30 lows.
JPMorgan is the largest U.S. bank. He mentions it here not as a buy or sell, but as evidence of behind-the-scenes "stealth" money-printing.
JPMorgan reportedly moved about $200 billion out of its reserves parked at the Federal Reserve and into short-term Treasury bonds. He argues the Treasury is quietly pushing banks to buy government debt — which pumps liquidity into markets — and JPM's move is his prime example of that maneuver near the late-March lows.
5:39But behind the scenes, what the scent did, and we have a liquidity model at the Bear Traps Report. Uh we went long Bitcoin for the first time right near the lows in our trade alerts for the first time ever. And it's because our liquidity model showed a massive injection. The scent, if you look at what they're doing, they're forcing banks to own more treasuries, okay? JP Morgan took their reserves at the Fed down by $200 billion and put it into, you know, two to five year notes.
In short: Price-to-book hit ~2.6× (vs a ~1.6× historical average) — "crazy overbought" and still expensive; part of the short-financials call.
JPMorgan is the largest U.S. bank. His complaint is purely valuation. "Price-to-book" compares a stock's price to the accounting value of what the bank actually owns; JPM hit about 2.6 times, versus a historical norm near 1.6.
In plain terms, investors are paying a big premium for the bank's assets on optimism about deregulation — "crazy overbought," in his words. Too expensive, so it's part of his bet against the financials.
10:38But the price to book of JP Morgan in recent months reached 2.6 times book. The historical average is like 1.6. So the banks just got crazy overbought. And yeah, they're still really expensive. — I was going to go back to those gates that people put up on private equity and private credit. I think you remember this back in the hedge fund days, they learned that the hard way and started putting up gates so you couldn't get your money out. Do you see private equity in the same boat?
In short: Bill — method reference. Bought after the 2012 "whale trade" ~$6B loss knocked the stock — the same buy-the-policy/headwind-scare discipline applied to UnitedHealth today.
34:40time. And then 6 months later, uh, JP Morgan had the whale trade. They lost $6 billion on the whale trade and and their stock plummeted and we jumped on that. We we took advantage of those. So, — there's one big difference though. Back then, the US banks, their return had to go way up to be good.
In short: Reference: Jamie Dimon's "cockroach" warning on private-credit risk (after Tricolor/First Brands) — which Blue Owl's co-CEO publicly dismissed a month before OWL's own fund had to gate and dilute. Cited for irony, not a stance.
In short: Leader of the bank rally (Basel III rollback + steeper curve) to all-time highs and its first major sell-side downgrade at ~2.5× book ("not normal" to be near 3× book). Also the duration warning: its low-coupon 2030–31 bonds will sell off in price despite the credit being money-good.
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.