At Madrid’s Pirámide Building on Paseo de la Castellana, some of Spain’s most important business deals are designed, and the country’s wealthiest individuals come seeking investment opportunities for their money. It is the headquarters of JPMorgan, the world’s largest bank (excluding Chinese firms under state control), and on July 10 the atmosphere was that of a major occasion. Everything was in place, including rose arrangements in the colors of the Spanish and U.S. flags, to welcome “the boss”: none other than Jamie Dimon, the last pre-financial crisis banker still in his position.

Born in New York 70 years ago, Dimon has served as chairman and chief executive officer since 2006. Under his leadership, JPMorgan has become a giant with assets worth $5 trillion. Dimon, who had dined the previous evening with around 20 of Spain’s leading business figures, granted an exclusive interview to EL PAÍS, accompanied by Ignacio de la Colina, the bank’s head in Spain.

He arrived without a tie, with the top buttons of his white shirt undone. His greeting was brisk and executive. He gave the impression that, when you are with him, there is never any time to waste. The interview took place days before JPMorgan released its second-quarter results, during which the bank generated revenues of $57.347 billion, up 27%, while profit rose 41% to $21.155 billion. Never before has a bank earned so much money in three months.

Question. What are your prospects for the second half of the year?

Answer. In general, I don’t focus that much on the short term because it’s prone to conjecture, but so far, so good. My experience, however, tells me there are pivots in life, and no one knows when they will happen. The United States seems to be doing quite well, but there are other problems in the world that could alter that situation.

Q. Which business areas are performing best and which need to improve?

A. Most business areas are doing well. This gentleman [pointing to De la Colina] is doing an unbelievable job in Spain, but when we do deep dives into the situation in other countries or into specific divisions or products, we see that, in some cases, they are not performing as expected. It is important to recognize that we are not great at everything, and that others do some things better than us. Only then can we address our weaknesses.

Q. Will JPMorgan’s growth be purely organic, or are you considering new acquisitions?

A. The important thing is that we can grow 100% organically. Sometimes people underestimate the importance of organic growth, but to achieve it you must hire good professionals and have good systems. That’s what we do across all areas. For example, we have launched a strategy to open 500 branches in small towns in rural areas of the United States. Although we can grow 100% organically, we are always looking at opportunities to grow inorganically as well. You learn a lot when you explore those alternatives, but it should never be an excuse, as it is for some companies, not to grow organically.

Q. A few months ago you said that after certain regulatory reforms you had freed capital and had $20 billion that could be used for acquisitions. Do you have any targets in mind?

A. We are not obliged to spend that money; it is not a self‑imposed limit. If we wanted to, we could move up to $200 billion to finance a new deal, but we are not going to do that. Among other reasons, in the United States we cannot buy a bank. It is more likely that what we ultimately do will be a smaller, more specialized deal that enhances what we already have, in areas such as data management or payments.

Q. The problem is that right now everything is very expensive…

A. I am a very patient person.

My goal is to create a pan-European digital bank with Chase, and we aim to establish a presence in the continent’s major countries

Dimon’s mastery of timing is a hallmark of his management style. He is known for waiting patiently for the right moment to make a decisive move. The financial crisis triggered by subprime mortgages became his great opportunity. After reluctantly accepting government assistance, arguing that JPMorgan could have managed without life support, he used the Great Recession to propel the bank, then the third-largest in the United States, into the top position.

The Federal Reserve needed stronger institutions to absorb weaker ones, and Dimon seized the opportunity. Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual came under JPMorgan’s control. These were risky acquisitions because no one truly knew what was hidden on those banks’ balance sheets at the time, but they were purchased at bargain prices.

In May 2023, he repeated the strategy when JPMorgan acquired First Republic Bank after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank triggered a massive outflow of deposits from several regional lenders.

Q. The Trump administration introduced regulatory changes that favor the financial sector by releasing capital. Yet you insist reforms must go further to allow banks to help the real economy even more. What specifically do you mean?

A. I’m not asking the administration to make changes on behalf of the banks. Over the last 15 years, many rules affecting the financial sector have been introduced, and the question regulators should ask is whether those rules are delivering the intended results — whether they have enabled institutions to finance the real economy. If there were a real conversation among regulators, governments and banks, more could be done for the common good. When capital is freed, there is a perception that banks are less safe, and that is not true. In recent decades, two large banking groups failed in the United States for reasons that had nothing to do with capital; it had to do with mismanagement and a lack of balance.

Q. Three years ago JPMorgan launched Chase, its digital bank, in the United Kingdom, and since last May it has also operated in Germany. When will it arrive in Spain?

A. In the U.K. we already have more than three million clients, and in Germany, in just a few months, deposit balances have reached $12 billion. These strong figures confirm that our goal — to create a pan‑European digital bank — is possible. We are adding credit cards and investment products to our services. In the future, the intention is to expand to more European countries, the most important ones, but we have not yet decided which ones.

Q. In digital banking, especially among younger customers, neobanks are gaining market share. How can a giant like JPMorgan compete against smaller, nimbler firms?

A. Some neobanks and fintechs are excellent. JPMorgan is gaining market share in many businesses and countries, including consumer banking in the United States, but to do so you have to make the right investments and hire the right people. There is nothing neobanks do that we can’t do. If we can’t do it, it will be because of our own weaknesses — excessive bureaucracy, complacency, or slowness — not because of any genetic reason.

Q. What do you think of Revolut’s success? It is planning an IPO with a valuation close to $200 billion…

A. I applaud Revolut’s success. Seeing people succeed like that is great. When I read about its IPO, I think we could have been there if we had started earlier, but it’s great because it shows there are great things to aspire to if we keep our competitive spirit alive.

A lot of the economy’s resilience is due to rising deficits and public debt. I’m not sure how long we can continue like this

Dimon’s background fits the classic pattern of the American Dream, a narrative that now seems to be fading amid Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigration. He spent his childhood in Queens, and from those years he has retained a distinctly strong accent, paired with a remarkably rapid speaking style. His grandfather, who was born in Greece, arrived in the United States with no money. Panos Papademetriou changed his name to Panos Dimon and, after trying his hand at various occupations, built a career as a financial broker at Shearson Hammill & Co., where the father of JPMorgan’s current chairman also worked.

After earning a degree in psychology and economics from Tufts University and completing an MBA at Harvard, Dimon followed the family path into finance. His professional mentor was the legendary banker Sandy Weill. Together, they went to Baltimore, where Dimon worked at Commercial Credit. That company eventually evolved into Travelers, which in 1998 merged with Citicorp in a landmark $70 billion deal that created Citigroup.

Dimon had reached the pinnacle of the industry, but his mentor dismissed him later that same year, ending a professional relationship that had lasted 15 years. Weill later told The New York Times that Dimon aspired to become chief executive, while he himself was not yet ready to step aside.

After some time on the sidelines, Dimon became CEO of Bank One in 2000, a post he held until the merger with JPMorgan in 2004. He spent a year as chief operating officer of the combined firm until January 1, 2006, when he took the top office of the company — which dates back to 1799 — and he has not left it since.

Q. When you presented first‑quarter results, you warned shareholders your mission was to prepare the bank for a wide range of scenarios. Given the current geopolitical chaos and volatility, how do you run a multinational?

A. The economy has ups and downs, and you have to recognize global movements that are driving change. The most important thing is to serve customers better and faster, regardless of where we are in the economic cycle. In such a volatile world, internal controls are also very important; regulators do a stress test on banks once a year, but we do 100 a week. The geopolitical situation is quite serious. It’s important to maintain cohesion among allies, and from the bank we try to contribute with initiatives such as “Security Resilience” to help the Western world ensure resilience not only in military terms but also in pharmaceuticals and technology.

Q. Despite wars, tariff increases and energy shocks, the global economy has logged five years of sustained growth. What is the reason for this resilience?

A. I’ll give you two explanations, one good and one not so good. The good one is that the economy is much bigger and energy is a smaller component than a decade ago. We may have a more diversified economy with a greater capacity to withstand shocks. That doesn’t mean we won’t hit a tipping point where the economy slows or enters recession, but perhaps more factors will be needed to provoke it than before. The not-so-good explanation is that we are financing everything — a lot of the economy’s resilience is due to rising deficits and public debt. I’m not sure how long we can continue like this before sovereign debt becomes a risk on its own.

Q. What other risks would you highlight?

A. There’s a long list: Ukraine, the Middle East, terrorism, the West’s relationship with China, oil… I would also highlight cyberattacks and their impact on public and private security. And artificial intelligence is making it even riskier.

Q. What is JPMorgan doing to combat cyberattacks?

A. We invest a lot of money and time and allocate many resources to this issue. But even with systems that make it seem like we’re in Fort Knox [the U.S. military base that stores gold bullion], it remains a permanent risk, as it does for all companies.

Central banks do not have absolute control over monetary policy

Although an aura of success follows him, the JPMorgan chief, who is married (his wife, Judy, accompanied him on this visit to Madrid) and the father of three daughters, has also experienced several setbacks, both personal and professional.

On the professional front, perhaps the most serious occurred in 2012, when the bank’s controls failed, and one of its traders caused losses of more than $5 billion through highly risky derivatives transactions. The episode became known as the “London Whale” scandal, and Dimon had to publicly apologize and account for the losses before shareholders.

In his personal life, the banker has also faced significant health challenges. In 2014, he informed employees and investors that he had been diagnosed with throat cancer. After overcoming the illness, he underwent heart surgery in 2020 to correct a cardiac condition.

Despite these setbacks, Dimon appears to be in excellent shape and continues to maintain a relentless schedule. In fact, an interview in which he describes a typical day in his life has gone viral on social media: he wakes up at 4:30 a.m., reads five newspapers (some from cover to cover, others focusing only on the business or opinion sections), fits in some exercise, and then heads to the office.

Q. The Federal Reserve has a new chairman. What do you think of Kevin Warsh?

A. He is a capable and smart person. I’m glad he was picked. I also think his first decision to step back and review everything that has been done, and how it was done, was appropriate. When someone takes a new post, they have to approach it from a fresh perspective. And over the last 20 years, the Fed has done nothing but add new rules. Perhaps Warsh will want to change things. In my view, he should, because monetary policy has had too much quantitative easing and there have been too many rules and regulations that have hurt the economy.

Q. Will we also see changes in strictly monetary policy?

A. Central banks do not have absolute control over monetary policy. Viewed historically, when inflation rises unpredictably (and price increases tend to be unpredictable), they must respond by raising rates. So the notion that they have control and can do whatever they want based solely on the data is wrong. Then there are the two types of data: the actual, visible data, and the future data, which are less certain. Those future factors are not usually included in models, but rising deficits, higher trade costs, or rearming states are all inflationary forces.

Q. During Jerome Powell’s final period at the Fed, Trump put enormous pressure on him to cut interest rates. Do you think that may have damaged the reputation of such an important institution?

A. It’s true there was pressure, but the same happens to other central banks. I doubt there has been any president or prime minister in any country who didn’t want lower interest rates to boost the economy. Powell did his job and made the decision he believed was best despite the pressures. Warsh will likely face similar pressures, and I hope he does the right thing. But the decision does not depend solely on the Fed chair — there are 12 people around the table who decide.

Q. Markets have begun to price in rate hikes in both the United States and Europe. What do you think?

A. Sometimes market expectations are wrong, but this time they’re probably right.

Q. Stock markets are at record highs. Many indices have risen by more than 200% since the pandemic. Do you think there is a risk that a bubble is forming?

A. Stock prices are very high, and that is a risk. If something goes wrong, you have further to fall. To justify these prices, corporate profits would have to grow considerably over the next two years, and that is speculative — no one knows it will happen. I believe the probability of something going wrong in the economy is greater than what markets are pricing in. I’m not saying the probability is 80%, but neither is it the 15% investors expect; I would price it at 30%. No one saw the 1974 crisis, the 1987 crash, the internet bubble of the early 2000s or the 2008 housing crisis coming. But you must be prepared in case it happens again. There are mounting problems in the world today, and it’s hard for all of them to be resolved the right way.

Q. You have been critical of the growth of the private lending market, where private equity firms or asset managers lend to companies. Are you critical because this trend represents greater competition for traditional banks or because you think there is a risk for the system?

A. Competition doesn’t bother me because I think it’s good. I wouldn’t say I’ve been critical so much as analytical. I’m not talking about a systemic risk because the private credit market is relatively small compared with the entire financial system. What I have said is that lending standards for those loans have become a little lax. There is a rollover risk, which means many companies will have to refinance at much higher rates, and many are not prepared to refinance their bonds or leveraged loans at rates 400 basis points higher. That would put a lot of stress in the system overall, including banks and the real estate sector.

I will not retire soon. I’ll stay a few more years and then I might remain as chairman

JPMorgan has a market capitalization of nearly $920 billion. Since Dimon took the helm, the bank’s share price has surged by 720%. His own bank account has benefited from that rise, given that a large portion of his compensation is paid in stock. Last year, he received a total of $43 million, and according to Forbes, his net worth is estimated at $3.1 billion.

In addition to cementing JPMorgan’s position as the world’s leading bank, Dimon will leave behind a spectacular new headquarters, inaugurated in 2025. At 270 Park Avenue stands a 60‑story, 423‑meter tower designed by Norman Foster that has become the sixth‑tallest building in Manhattan. It is a buoyant time on Wall Street thanks to the investment driven by AI. JPMorgan was one of the banks involved in the SpaceX share offering, the largest IPO in history.

Q. It’s clear AI will not only transform the economy but also our lives. However, don’t you think valuations for companies in the sector are excessive, given many of them are still cash‑burning machines?

A. I think that question has two answers. On one hand, the revolution that AI is bringing is undeniable; it is very valuable, and its application in medicine will save millions of lives. So much of the expectations being priced in now are justified. Is there a bubble in valuations? Maybe. The same happened at the start of the century with the early internet. Did that euphoria pay off over time? Absolutely. Was it partially a bubble? Yes. I think that example reflects what can happen with AI now. This game has only just begun, and there will be winners and losers because there is a tendency toward self‑sufficiency — companies building their own data centers and even their own semiconductors or advanced language models.

Q. How does JPMorgan use AI to transform the way it banks?

A. There is a team of more than 1,000 people dedicated to AI development, and we have over 500 very specific use cases. For example, the bank moves $15 billion a day in transactions worldwide, and one of our concerns is fraud prevention. We’ve developed a system that recognizes patterns and has reduced risk in this area. We also use AI in marketing, idea generation, client mistake detection, document reading… AI is a great tool to achieve our goal of providing better service every day.

Q. One of the biggest fears is AI’s impact on the labor market. Will many of us lose our jobs?

A. People are making a huge error. Most technological developments in history — from the steam engine to the internet — have brought huge benefits for society, and AI is already doing that. It raises productivity and will create new and better jobs. It’s true some sectors have been or will be harmed by AI. That’s why, as a society, we must think about how to face this challenge and prepare for what’s coming, which is still unclear. Companies, public administrations, unions — we all have to think about how to retrain those whose jobs are displaced by AI and how to educate new generations in the skills that will be required in the future.

The U.S. should remain in NATO and strengthen it, not weaken it

Discussion of Dimon’s succession has been rumbling on for years. Whenever a likely heir apparent seemed to emerge, they eventually dropped out of contention, much as Dimon himself once did under Sandy Weill. In June, however, the bank took a step that appears, at last, to have formally launched the succession race.

Specifically, JPMorgan appointed two co-presidents of its expanded commercial and investment banking division: Doug Petno and Troy Rohrbaugh. The reshuffle prompted the departure of veteran executive Marianne Lake, who until then had been widely seen as the leading contender to take the reins.

Q. Does the appointment of the two co‑presidents mean you plan to retire soon?

A. Well, not soon. I will remain in my role for several years, and after that I might stay on as chairman or a similar figure. But it’s true they are both extraordinary candidates. This is not a succession race; the best person — heart, soul, mind, ethics and work ethic — should ultimately get the job.

Q. Have you considered running for U.S. president?

A. It is something I could do, but I do not intend to run.

Q. Do you mean you don’t intend to run now or do you rule out the possibility entirely?

A. I don’t intend to at all. I love my job. I can make the world a better place from this perch, and that is what I intend to do.

Q. You are critical of Europe and warn that if it does nothing it will lose ground to the United States and China. What is your recipe to prevent that?

Q. It’s not just my view; within Europe there is also consensus that measures must be taken to be more competitive. A fundamental step, to which we would like to contribute, is the creation of a genuine capital markets union. If Europe doesn’t become more competitive, all citizens will lose out, both the poor and the rich. Developing a real capital markets infrastructure is essential to finance rearmament, social programs, talent development and assistance for lower‑income people. Europe is competing not only with the United States but also with China, which acts in a completely different way. I know the U.S. is not now seen in Europe as a friend, but it is. We have been military and economic allies since World War II, and I believe that relationship, with some modifications, will continue.

Q. Are you worried Europeans no longer see the United States as a reliable partner?

A. I think it’s legitimate for them to be concerned about the relationship, and Americans have probably contributed to that concern. What I ask is what can be done to fix it. When someone criticizes you, you should listen to know where they are in the wrong and where they might be in the right. The U.S. administration has pointed out a lot of things that must be fixed. On NATO, for example, everyone agrees: “Trump brought us to the negotiating table and he was right that members should spend more on defense,” they tell me. My view is that the United States should remain in NATO and strengthen it, not weaken it. And I think that is what is being done.

Q. And what about tariff threats? Is the United States also right on that?

A. The ultimate goal must be to work to strengthen our trade relationship with Europe. There are some legitimate trade issues that run both ways — it’s not a one‑sided situation. We need to make Europe stronger and to also make the United States stronger. Foreigners hold $30 trillion in U.S. assets, and a significant portion is in European hands. Add to that foreign direct investment. All European companies I deal with have huge investments in the United States, and the same goes for U.S. firms in Europe. Those ties mean we want the other to succeed.