Election Day is just one week away, and the outcome is set to have wide-ranging consequences for markets regardless of who wins the White House or which party controls each chamber of Congress. Stocks are uncharacteristically strong heading into the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 5, with all three major averages at or near all-time highs even in the face of rising Treasury yields. On Tuesday, the Nasdaq Composite index notched a new record for the second time in three days. But either way the results fall on Nov. 5 has the potential to roil markets — especially after an exceptionally tight race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, according to the latest NBC News poll . “No matter how the election results come in, it’s certain that there will be lasting effects for both U.S. and global markets,” Mike Mullaney, director of global markets research at Boston Partners, wrote in a recent paper. The candidates’ policies could hardly be more different. Trump has promised expansive tax cuts for companies and individuals, in addition to stepped up tariffs and a mass deportation of illegal immigrants. Harris has promised higher taxes on corporations and the rich, and expansions of housing and health care spending. Both, however, would implement policies that raise what is already a yawning budget deficit. It’s a concern perhaps picked up by bond investors, who briefly drove the yield on the benchmark U.S. 10-year Treasury near 4.34% on Tuesday. Here is how stocks might react to a variety of outcomes. A Trump win, with or without a Republican sweep A Trump victory, with an uncontested Republican sweep of Congress, is projected to be a bullish development for equities. It’s an outcome that markets appear to already be pricing in . Not only are the three major stock averages at or near all-time highs, the outperformance of banks in particular points to further cyclical leadership in the event that Trump wins the November election. The SPDR S & P Regional Banking ETF (KRE) has jumped nearly 5% since the fourth quarter began on Oct. 1, while the S & P 500 is ahead a little more than 1%. Julian Emanuel, senior managing director leading the equity, derivatives, and quantitative strategy team at Evercore ISI, expects the vote could lead to a “‘performance chase’ meltup” that pushes the S & P 500 over 6,000 after the election, and close to 6,300 by year-end. Other market observers also expect a Republican sweep will be bullish for equities. “If you do get Trump in a Red Sweep, you’re going to get this cyclical pile-on,” Warren Pies, 3Fourteen Research co-founder, told CNBC’s ” Closing Bell ” on Friday. The market “could have indigestion” at first blush, “and then all of a sudden everyone realizes, yeah, but nominal GDP is going to be really strong. So, let’s buy this market,” he said. In the event of a Trump win but with a divided Congress, the S & P 500 is likely to remain flat in the days following the election, Emanuel wrote. However, this case has the highest likelihood of a “market meltup” scenario, in which the S & P 500 could soar above 6,450 during what are already the seasonally strong months of November and December. A Harris win, with or without a Democratic sweep A Harris victory, including a sweep of both the House of Representatives and Senate, is expected to act as a negative surprise for markets in the days after the Nov. 5 election. Evercore ISI expects the S & P 500 falling in the 10 days after the election, to roughly 5,700, as markets re-price their expectations. But even under this scenario, the broad market index is still seen surging to close to 6,200 by the end of the year. “I think you could get an after-election opportunity to put money to work,” Jeff Schulze, head of economic and market strategy at ClearBridge Investments, said during a media webcast last week. 3Fourteen Research co-founder Pies expects a Harris win would translate into a drop in cyclical and small-cap stocks, and spur investors to turn to high-quality tech names. He expects bond yields could come off their highs. However, a Harris win, with a split Congress, is an outcome that could spur a drop in the S & P 500 immediately after the election, down to about 5,525, according to Evercore ISI. In this outcome, the S & P 500 could end the year little changed from where it is now if the election results are only lightly contested, or slide to maybe 5,675 if the results are highly contested and there’s a threatened disruption to the transfer of power in January, Evercore ISI’s Emanuel said.
Sarah Kapnick started her career in 2004 as an investment banking analyst for Goldman Sachs. She was struck almost immediately by the overlap of financial growth and climate change, and the lack of client advisory around that theme.
Integrating the two, she thought, would help investors understand both the risks and opportunities, and would help them use climate information in finance and business operations. With a degree in theoretical mathematics and geophysical fluid dynamics, Kapnick saw herself as uniquely positioned to take on that challenge.
But first, she had to get deeper into the science.
That led her to more study and then to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the nation’s scientific and regulatory agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce. Its defined mission is to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts and to share that knowledge and information with others.
In 2022, Kapnick was appointed NOAA’s chief scientist. Two years later, JPMorgan Chase hired her away, but not as chief sustainability officer, a role common at most large investment banks around the world and a position already filled at JPMorgan.
Rather, Kapnick is JPMorgan’s global head of climate advisory, a unique job she envisioned back in 2004.
Just days before the official start of the North American hurricane season, CNBC spoke with Kapnick from her office at JPMorgan in New York about her current role at the bank and how she’s advising and warning clients.
Here’s the Q&A:
(This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.)
Diana Olick, CNBC: Why does JPMorgan need you?
Sarah Kapnick, JPMorgan global head of climate advisory: JPMorgan and banks need climate expertise because there is client demand for understanding climate change, understanding how it affects businesses, and understanding how to plan. Clients want to understand how to create frameworks for thinking about climate change, how to think about it strategically, how to think about it in terms of their operations, how to think about it in terms of their diversification and their long-term business plans.
Everybody’s got a chief sustainability officer. You are not that. What is the difference?
The difference is, I come with a deep background in climate science, but also how that climate science translates into business, into the economy. Working at NOAA for most of my career, NOAA is a science agency, but it’s science agency under the Department of Commerce. And so my job was to understand the future due to physics, but then be able to translate into what does that mean for the economy? What does that mean for economic development? What does that mean for economic output, and how do you use that science to be able to support the future of commerce? So I have this deep thinking that combines all that science, all of that commerce thinking, that economy, how it translates into national security. And so it wraps up all these different issues that people are facing right now and the systematic issues, so that they can understand, how do you navigate through that complexity, and then how do you move forward with all that information at hand?
Give us an example, on a ground level, of what some of that expertise does for investors.
There’s a client that’s concerned about the future of wildfire risk, and so they’re asking, How is wildfire risk unfolding? Why is it not in building codes? How might building codes change in the future? What happens for that? What type of modeling is used for that, what type of observations are used for that? So I can explain to them the whole flow of where is the data? How is the data used in decisions, where do regulations come from. How are they evolving? How might they evolve in the future? So we can look through the various uncertainties of different scenarios of what the world looks like, to make decisions about what to do right now, to be able to prepare for that, or to be able to shift in that preparation over time as uncertainty comes down and more information is known
So are they making investment decisions based on your information?
Yes, they’re making investment decisions. And they’re making decisions of when to invest because sometimes they have a knowledge of something as it’s starting to evolve. They want to act either early or they want to act as more information is known, but they want to know kind of the whole sphere of what the possibilities are and when information will be known or could be known, and what are the conditions that they will know more information, so they can figure out when they want to act, when that threshold of information is that they need to act.
How does that then inform their judgment on their investment, specifically on wildfire?
Because wildfire risk is growing, there’ve been a few events like the Los Angeles wildfires that were recently seen. The questions that I’m getting are could this happen in my location? When will it happen? Will I have advanced notice? How should I change and invest in my infrastructure? How should I think about differences in my infrastructure, my infrastructure construction? Should I be thinking about insurance, different types of insurance? How should I be accessing the capital markets to do this type of work? It’s questions across a range of trying to figure out how to reduce vulnerability, how to reduce financial exposure, but then also, if there are going to be risks in this one location, maybe there are more opportunities in these other locations that are safer, and I should be thinking of them as well. It’s holistically across risk management and thinking through risk and what to do about it, but then also thinking about what opportunities might be emerging as a result of this change in physical conditions in the world.
But you’re not an economist. Do you work with others at JPMorgan to augment that?
Yes, my work is very collaborative. I work across various teams with subject matter experts from different sectors, different industries, different parts of capital, and so I come with my expertise of science and technology and policy and security, and then work with them in whatever sphere that they’re in to be able to deliver the most to the bank that we can for our clients.
With the cuts by the Trump administration to NOAA, to FEMA, to all of the information gathering sources — we’re not seeing some of the things that we normally see in data. How is that affecting your work?
I am looking to what is available for what we need, for whatever issue. I will say that if data is no longer available, we will translate and move into other data sets, use other data sets, and I’m starting to see the development out in certain parts of the private sector to pull in those types of data that used to be available elsewhere. I think that we’re going to see this adjustment period where people search out whatever data it is they need to answer the questions that they have. And there will be opportunities. There’s a ton of startups that are starting to develop in that area, as well as more substantial companies that have some of those data sets. They’re starting to make them available, but there’s going to be this adjustment period as people figure out where they’re going to get the information that they need, because many market decisions or financial decisions are based on certain data sets that people thought would always be there.
But the government data was considered the top, irrefutable, best data there was. Now, how do we know, when going to the private sector, that this data is going to be as credible as government data?
There’s going to be an adjustment period as people figure out what data sets to trust and what not to trust, and what they want to be using. This is a point in time where there is going to be adjustment because something that everyone got used to working with, they now won’t have that. And that is a question that I’m getting from a lot of clients, of what data set should I be looking for? How should I be assessing this problem? Do I build in-house teams now to be able to assess this information that I didn’t have before? And I’m starting to see that occurring across different sectors, where people are increasingly having their own meteorologist, their own climatologist, to be able to help guide them through some of these decisions.
Final thoughts?
Climate change isn’t something that is going to happen in the future and impact finance in the future. It’s something that is a future risk that is now actually finding us in the bottom line today.
Daniel Loeb has found himself a new goal as his hedge fund Third Point entered its milestone 30th year: To be a true winner in the red-hot artificial intelligence boom and not run over by it. “Change is happening at an ever accelerating and increasing rate and it’s just going to require us to continue to be even more nimble, and to use AI as your own tool to stay on top of what’s going on,” Loeb told CNBC’s Scott Wapner at Third Point’s investor day Thursday. “You’ll either be a beneficiary of AI or AI roadkill. So I think we all need to do our best to not be the latter.” AI has dominated Wall Street’s investing theme over the past two years as investors left and right seek to hit home runs in the space, from chipmakers to hardware producers to car companies and utilities. Loeb, once known for his sharp brand of activism, has emerged as a big AI bull in recent years, increasing his fund’s AI exposure to nearly half of its equity portfolio in 2024. Ways Loeb is playing AI The hedge-fund investor not only owns “legacy” companies like Meta , Nvidia , Microsoft and Amazon — which he said have built enormous competitive advantages — but he is also betting on AI beneficiary London Stock Exchange Group and chipmaker Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing . “It’s a pervasive component of our research process… It’s a variable in which we benchmark all of the companies that we invest in, both in terms of how they’re using it… whether it’s cloud companies or Amazons or Microsofts and how they’re directly benefiting from it,” Loeb said. Three decades ago, Loeb started Third Point with $3.2 million cobbled together from friends and family. Today, the hedge fund touts over $20 billion assets under management and net returns of 15% since inception, weathering the dotcom crash, the 2008 financial crisis and the Covid pandemic. Known for being one of the best activist investors ever, he’s grown the firm to include a significant credit and venture business. On today’s market environment, Loeb believes the short-term uncertainty will start to fade by next year and investors picking quality, growth stocks with fair prices will be rewarded in the long run. “I think it will be ok.. I think we’ll start looking towards a better, more predictable 2026,” Loeb said. “I think there will definitely be winners and losers. The economy will grow at about a one-percent rate unless something comes out of left field, so I think it’s a good environment for investing in growthy companies at good valuations.” He also revealed that Third Point got back into US Steel a month or so ago in the $30s range in a bet that its path to a deal with Nippon Steel would materialize. CNBC reported this week that Nippon is expected to close acquisition of U.S. Steel at $55 per share.
Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, testifies during the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing titled Annual Oversight of Wall Street Firms, in the Hart Building on Dec. 6, 2023.
Tom Williams | Cq-roll Call, Inc. | Getty Images
The more Jamie Dimon worries, the better his bank seems to do.
As JPMorgan Chase has grown larger, more profitable and increasingly more crucial to the U.S. economy in recent years, its star CEO has grown more vocal about what could go wrong — all while things keep going right for his bank.
In the best of times and in the worst of times, Dimon’s public outlook is grim.
Whether it’s his 2022 forecast for a “hurricane” hitting the U.S. economy, his concerns over the fraying post-WWII world order or his caution about America getting hit by a one-two punch of recession and inflation, Dimon seems to lace every earnings report, TV appearance and investor event with another dire warning.
“His track record of leading the bank is incredible,” said Ben Mackovak, a board member of four banks and investor through his firm Strategic Value Bank Partner. “His track record of making economic-calamity predictions, not as good.”
Over his two decades running JPMorgan, Dimon, 69, has helped build a financial institution unlike any the world has seen.
A sprawling giant in both Main Street banking and Wall Street high finance, Dimon’s bank is, in his own words, an end-game winner when it comes to money. It has more branches, deposits and online users than any peer and is a leading credit card and small business franchise. It has a top market share in both trading and investment banking, and more than $10 trillion moves over its global payment rails daily.
‘Warning shot’
A review of 20 years of Dimon’s annual investor letters and his public statements show a distinct evolution. He became CEO in 2006, and his first decade at the helm of JPMorgan was consumed by the U.S. housing bubble, the 2008 financial crisis and its long aftermath, including the acquisition of two failed rivals, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual.
By the time he began his second decade leading JPMorgan, however, just as the legal hangover from the mortgage crisis began to fade, Dimon began seeing new storm clouds on the horizon.
“There will be another crisis,” he wrote in his April 2015 CEO letter, musing on potential triggers and pointing out that recent gyrations in U.S. debt were a “warning shot” for markets.
That passage marked the start of more frequent financial warnings from Dimon, including worries of a recession — which didn’t happen until the 2020 pandemic triggered a two-month contraction — as well as concerns around market meltdowns and the ballooning U.S. deficit.
But it also marked a decade in which JPMorgan’s performance began lapping rivals. After leveling out at roughly $20 billion in annual profit for a few years, the sprawling machine that Dimon oversaw began to truly hit its stride.
JPMorgan generated six record annual profits from 2015 to 2024, twice as many as in Dimon’s first decade as CEO. JPMorgan is now the world’s most valuable publicly traded financial firm and is spending $18 billion annually on technology, including artificial intelligence, to stay that way.
While Dimon seems perpetually worried about the economy and rising geopolitical turmoil, the U.S. economy keeps chugging along. That means unemployment and consumer spending has been more resilient than expected, allowing JPMorgan to make record profits.
In 2022, Dimon told a roomful of professional investors to prepare for an economic storm: “Right now, it’s kind of sunny, things are doing fine, everyone thinks the Fed can handle this,” Dimon said, referring to the Federal Reserve managing the post-pandemic economy.
“That hurricane is right out there, down the road, coming our way,” he said.
“This may be the most dangerous time the world has seen in decades,” Dimon said the following year in an earnings release.
But investors who listened to Dimon and made their portfolios more conservative would’ve missed on the best two-year run for the S&P 500 in decades.
‘You look stupid’
“It’s an interesting contradiction, no doubt,” Mackovak said about Dimon’s downbeat remarks and his bank’s performance.
“Part of it could just be the brand-building of Jamie Dimon,” the investor said. “Or having a win-win narrative where if something goes bad, you can say, ‘Oh, I called it,’ and if doesn’t, well your bank’s still chugging along.”
According to the former president of a top five U.S. financial institution, bankers know that it’s wiser to broadcast caution than optimism. Former Citigroup CEO Chuck Prince, for example, is best known for his ill-fated comment in 2007 about the mortgage business that “as long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance.”
“One learns that there’s a lot more downside to your reputation if you are overly optimistic and things go wrong,” said this former executive, who asked to remain anonymous to discuss Dimon. “It’s damaging to your bank, and you look stupid, whereas the other way around, you just look like you’re being a very cautious, thoughtful banker.”
Banking is ultimately a business of calculated risks, and its CEOs have to be attuned to the downside, to the possibility that they don’t get repaid on their loans, said banking analyst Mike Mayo of Wells Fargo.
“It’s the old cliché that a good banker carries an umbrella when sun is shining; they’re always looking around the corner, always aware of what could go wrong,” Mayo said.
But other longtime Dimon watchers see something else.
Dimon has an “ulterior motive” for his public comments, according to Portales Partners analyst Charles Peabody.
“I think this rhetoric is to keep his management team focused on future risks, whether they happen or not,” Peabody said. “With a high-performing, high-growth franchise, he’s trying to prevent them from becoming complacent, so I think he’s ingrained in their culture a constant war room-type atmosphere.”
Dimon has no shortage of things to worry about, despite the fact that his bank generated a record $58.5 billion in profit last year. Conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza rage on, the U.S. national debt grows and President Donald Trump‘s trade policies continue to jolt adversaries and allies alike.
Graveyard of bank logos
“It’s fair to observe that he’s not omniscient and not everything he says comes true,” said Truist bank analyst Brian Foran. “He comes at it more from a perspective that you need to be prepared for X, as opposed to we’re convinced X is going to happen.”
JPMorgan was better positioned for higher interest rates than most of its peers were in 2023, when rates surged and punished those who held low-yielding long-term bonds, Foran noted.
“For many years, he said ‘Be prepared for the 10 year at 5%, and we all thought he was crazy, because it was like 1% at the time,” Foran said. “Turns out that being prepared was not a bad thing.”
Perhaps the best explanation for Dimon’s dour outlook is that, no matter how big and powerful JPMorgan is, financial companies can be fragile. The history of finance is one of the rise and fall of institutions, sometimes when managers become complacent or greedy.
In fact, the graveyard of bank logos that are no longer used includes three — Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual and First Republic — that have been subsumed by JPMorgan.
During his bank’s investor day meeting this month, Dimon pointed out that, in the past decade, JPMorgan has been one of the only firms to earn annual returns of more than 17%.
“If you go back to the 10 years before that, OK, a lot of people earned over 17%,” Dimon said. “Almost every single one went bankrupt. Hear what I just said?
“Almost every single major financial company in the world almost didn’t make it,” he said. “It’s a rough world out there.”