|Bid||133.05 x 1000|
|Ask||133.07 x 800|
|Day's range||132.32 - 136.43|
|52-week range||98.09 - 141.10|
|Beta (5Y monthly)||N/A|
|PE ratio (TTM)||12.42|
|Earnings date||13 Apr 2020|
|Forward dividend & yield||N/A (N/A)|
|1y target est||139.63|
JPMorgan Chase & Co has hired senior banking technology executive Gavin Leo-Rhynie as head of engineering and architecture for the corporate and investment bank (CIB), according to a memo seen by Reuters. Leo-Rhynie, who will be based in New York, will join the bank on Monday after more than two decades at Goldman Sachs Group Inc where he held several senior technology roles, the memo said. At JPMorgan, Leo-Rhynie will serve as a member of the CIB technology leadership team and will focus on driving initiatives to modernize critical applications and infrastructure, according to the memo.
Years into a bond market bull-run, investors are banking on a brighter future for funds that buy the debt of financially troubled European companies whose bonds are offering meatier returns because they are more risky. With European economic growth expected to be subdued in 2020, and default rates tipped to rise, investors expect an increase in the number of companies that will struggle to service their debt. Private equity groups and asset managers are creating so-called special situation funds to identify suitable targets for these high-risk - and potentially high-reward - bets.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- “Worrisome.” “Dangerous and aggressive.” “Abuse of documentation.” “Peak greed.”These are just a few of the ways investors and analysts have described the riskiest corners of the debt markets in the past few days. From the U.S. to Europe, whether in collateralized loan obligations or junk bonds, the feeling that the reach for yield in fixed income is fast approaching a breaking point is becoming too powerful to ignore. It’s perhaps best encapsulated by a quote in the Wall Street Journal from Luca Cazzulani, a senior fixed-income strategist at UniCredit: “Investors are not really interested in safety, they are quite keen on yield.’’That’s good, I guess. Because for those who still favor strong credit protection, it’s getting harder and harder to find it. Let’s start with CLOs. Bloomberg News’s Adam Tempkin had an in-depth article this week with the headline “CLOs Are Packed With New Loopholes, Triggering Investor Backlash.” He reported that investors, analysts and credit raters are taken aback by managers’ efforts to “swap troubled loans, circumvent credit-quality limitations, and double down on risky wagers, largely in an effort to ensure they can pass crucial compliance tests, even if a large swath of a CLO’s underlying loans lose value.” Many understand that having a bit of flexibility in an illiquid market is a good thing when prices fluctuate but argue that provisions like these create the potential for severe losses if the credit cycle truly turns.The same problem plagues the market for speculative-grade corporate bonds. Covenant Review, an independent research firm that analyzes debt documents for investors, published its 2019 year-in-review for the U.S. high-yield market this week and found many cases in which companies “ended up keeping some of the most dangerous and aggressive covenant provisions for bondholders.” A common strategy was for issuers to propose so many offensive covenants that even after a “hack and slash treatment to appease concerned bond investors,” they still got away with far more questionable terms than in the past.It would be one thing if bond investors were compensated for those risks — giving up some safety for yield is a classic trade-off. But, of course, that’s not the case.Rather, the yield on an index of double-B U.S. corporate bonds hit a record low of 3.47% this week. VICI Properties, a double-B rated real estate company that develops entertainment and hospitality centers, priced $750 million of five-year bonds with a 3.5% coupon, the lowest for that maturity in more than six years. To be clear, it’s not any better elsewhere up the credit spectrum, as yields on a Moody’s Corp. index of triple-B corporate bonds and a Bond Buyer index of municipal debt are both around the lowest since 1956. Even triple-C yields have fallen by 200 basis points in two months.Record-setting interest rates aren’t limited to America. In Austria, as my Bloomberg Opinion colleague Marcus Ashworth wrote, Erste Group Bank AG priced a so-called CoCo bond to yield 3.375%, the second-lowest coupon ever for the risky debt. And European high-yield bond sales are poised to top $11 billion this month, the most-ever for January.By now, it’s possible that the $100 trillion global bond market has simply become immune to reaching unprecedented levels. But the potential for complacency is scary, especially when someone like Bob Prince, who helps oversee the world’s biggest hedge fund at Bridgewater Associates, declares that the days of a boom-and-bust economic cycle are over.This brings to mind a piece of investing advice that has always stuck with me: Bull markets don’t end when everyone is on high alert for what could go wrong. It’s when everyone willfully chooses to ignore those warning signs that the cycle inevitably turns. The combination of weak credit protections and historically low yields on the riskiest corporate debt should be a clear red flag. Instead, when asked about financial-market bubbles, the one thing that came to mind for JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon was negative-yielding sovereign obligations. “Do you know anyone who’s actually bought a negative interest rate bond?” he asked CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin. “I would never buy a negative rate bond. Not unless I was forced.”(1)I get it. It’s tempting to bash negative-yielding bonds and anyone who owns them. Even though it has been several years since sovereign-debt yields fell below zero in Japan and some European countries, the concept still boggles the minds of Wall Street veterans. Who would purchase a security that locks in a loss if held to maturity?But I would pose the same question to buyers of speculative-grade securities at these rock-bottom yields. If you’re still of the mind that economic cycles exist, then it stands to reason that the longest expansion in U.S. history is long in the tooth. Will a sub-3.5% yield on double-B bonds, or sub-5% on single-B bonds, be enough to cancel out principal haircuts in the case of default? Perhaps. But it’s worth remembering that lending to the wrong companies can also lead to losses — and possibly large ones — even if dicey companies have largely avoided disaster in recent years.Now, there are some nascent signs that investors are anxious about their ability to pick winners after years of just about every wager paying off. Bloomberg News’s Caleb Mutua this week highlighted research from Barclays Plc that showed junk bonds experienced a much sharper sell-off when downgraded in 2019 than in previous years. Usually, bond traders pride themselves on having superior information and being ahead of the credit raters. That confidence might be wavering.Whether those fleeting jitters turn into anything more remains to be seen. Certainly, the Federal Reserve and other central banks aren’t about to do anything to derail the economic expansion with inflation still in check. And as long as yields and spreads remain near these lows, investors probably won’t lose much sleep over the daunting record $1.2 trillion of U.S. speculative-grade debt that’s set to mature through 2024.Yet just because there’s no clear catalyst for a reversal today doesn’t mean investors are safe from a nightmare scenario in the future. At the very least, they should push for stronger protections when they buy new bonds or loans. As it stands, if and when the credit cycle turns and the losses mount, they’ll have no one to blame but themselves.(1) Bloomberg News's Liz Capo McCormick quickly pointed out that plenty of Americans own negative-yielding debt, through Vanguard’s Total International Bond Index Fund.To contact the author of this story: Brian Chappatta at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Daniel Niemi at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Brian Chappatta is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering debt markets. He previously covered bonds for Bloomberg News. He is also a CFA charterholder.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Chase Card Services, the leading co-brand credit card issuer in the U.S., and United Airlines today introduced the all-new UnitedSM Business Card, designed to help business travelers maximize their miles. The new card will offer 2 miles per $1 spent on local transit and commuting, in addition to 2 miles per $1 spent at gas stations, office supply stores, restaurants and United purchases. New Cardmembers will also be eligible for a 100,000-mile bonus offer. To celebrate the new card launch, United and Chase are also offering special bonus-mile offers for new Cardmembers for the United Explorer Card, United Club Card and the United Club Business Card.
The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs
The guidance to design a winning portfolio comes from brokers. Given their thorough know-how pertaining to the stock market, investors often look to be guided by broker advice.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- It’s rare for an anonymous quote in a management consultant’s report to make much of an impression. But the admission by the chief financial officer of an unnamed global bank on the mystery that surrounds his own company’s technology spending is striking. It’s especially troubling for investors in the finance sector.“I know 50% of my digital transformation spend is wasted — I just don’t know which 50%,” the CFO was cited as saying in an Oliver Wyman report on bank tech (in a nod to a famous old marketing quote). An executive also confessed to feeling “old-fashioned” when asking why there hadn’t been any profitable returns from their firm’s digital investments, adding to the sense that sound strategies are a rare thing in this field.After years of plowing billions of dollars into shifting from serving customers in branches to mobile apps and instant payments, lenders are often in the dark about the difference their spending is making to operating profit.Banks typically don’t provide much detail on how their technology budgets are being allocated between keeping existing systems going, improving cyber-security and changing how the company engages with customers. But overall investment is large — and growing. Even some of the biggest lenders with the deepest pockets, such as JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Banco Santander SA, are spending more than 10% of their yearly revenue on technology.Too often banks don’t articulate how these billions improve the bottom line, though that’s natural enough if they don’t know the answer themselves. Investors are struggling inevitably to sift through the noise, the jargon and the lack of hard numbers to try to work out what their companies’ funds are being spent on. Unsurprisingly, 37% of the shareholders surveyed by Oliver Wyman found banks’ digital strategies neither clear nor credible, with a similar percentage skeptical about whether banks will be successful in adapting to the digital era.Rather than just complaining in surveys, investors should hold lenders more accountable. While metrics around technology spending are difficult to design, they are not not impossible. Singapore’s DBS Group Holdings Ltd., Southeast Asia’s biggest bank, provides comparisons of efficiency and profitability measures for traditional versus digital customers. That’s a very helpful gauge.Unfortunately, the numbers available elsewhere hardly point to much success for the finance industry’s vaunted “digitization” strategies. Across banking, the cost of serving customers has increased, according to Oliver Wyman. Expenses to set up apps often are not offset by cutting back on physical operations. For example, while customers can open a bank account or get a loan without stepping into a branch, the cost savings will be minimal if the lender still depends on manual processes to complete those tasks.One way for large banks to avoid the institutional inertia that bedevils major IT projects is to buy up promising fintech upstarts, but their track record here isn’t at all encouraging either. In a study of 15,000 financial services business launches, the report found 80 reached valuations in excess of $1 billion; incumbents had invested in only one-quarter of them before that unicorn stage. Hardly a sign that the industry can pick winners.For now, competition from fintechs hasn’t made much of a dent to the revenues of the big banks. In Europe, the biggest hit on margins has come from low, or negative, interest rates. Yet as digital banks and payment providers expand, the pressure will increase on incumbents to allocate their cash smartly. After a lost decade for investor returns, European lenders in particular cannot afford to guess their way through the next.To contact the author of this story: Elisa Martinuzzi at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Boxell at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Elisa Martinuzzi is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering finance. She is a former managing editor for European finance at Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Comerica's (CMA) Q4 results reflect higher fee income and lower provisions, partly offset by elevated expenses and lower net interest income.
Carbon neutrality will come at a steep price. Here's what Credit Suisse CEO Tidjane Thiam said on the topic at the 2020 World Economic Forum.
(Bloomberg) -- Follow Bloomberg on Telegram for all the investment news and analysis you need.South Korean bond traders are learning an important lesson in the social media era: don’t always trust private messaging apps when doing deals.Seoul Central District Court said in a ruling that a conversation about a debt deal via Telegram messenger doesn’t really count as a definitive contract. That’s a defeat for Yuanta Securities Korea Co., which filed a lawsuit in 2018 claiming that Hyundai Motor Securities Co. didn’t honor a debt deal made during a conversation on Telegram.Yuanta had said Hyundai Motor Securities owes it 14.8 billion won ($12.7 million) after having agreed to buy won-denominated commercial paper repackaging dollar bonds sold by China Energy Reserve & Chemicals Group Co., one of the biggest Chinese defaulters. HMS said no deal was made because there was no definitive agreement to buy the paper.The decision comes as regulators abroad also clamp down on the financial industry’s use of private messaging apps. A credit trader at JPMorgan Chase & Co. was recently placed on leave over the use of WhatsApp, the latest such case to hit Wall Street. It’s also a reminder of the risks of investing in some Chinese industrial debt after Korean investors were burned by CERCG’s offshore bond default in 2018.The Seoul court said last week that a Telegram conversation can’t be considered a binding contract because secret chats on it don’t leave a trace on its servers and conversations can be removed or automatically deleted, according to the ruling seen by Bloomberg News.To contact the reporter on this story: Kyungji Cho in Seoul at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Andrew Monahan at firstname.lastname@example.org, Ken McCallum, Finbarr FlynnFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The worst-case scenarios for Boeing Co.’s 737 Max crisis no longer look far-fetched.The airplane maker said Tuesday that its “best estimate” for when regulators will lift a flying ban on its Max jet is now mid-2020. The once top-selling plane has been grounded since March following two fatal crashes. The updated timeline reportedly reflects a new, recently discovered software flaw connected to how the Max’s flight computers power up and verify they’re receiving valid data, as well as the need to correct vulnerabilities in certain wiring bundles. Boeing said it’s also accounting for “further developments that may arise in connection with the certification process.”Perhaps the company is finally taking a more conservative attitude toward the Max crisis after a series of overly optimistic promises left its reputation in tatters and CEO Dennis Muilenburg without a job. The Federal Aviation Administration, for its part, reiterated that there’s no time frame for the Max’s return and that safety is its first priority. Airlines and suppliers now have to recalibrate accordingly, and this latest delay will be by far the most painful for them.With its stockpile of undeliverable jets growing and its cash burn deepening, Boeing had already made the call to halt production of the Max once it became clear it wouldn’t meet its previous deadline for a return to service by the end of 2019. The shutdown, which began in January, has already forced suppliers to idle their factories as well and, in some cases, to lay off employees. In one of the more extreme examples, Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc., which gets more than half its revenue from the Max, saw the rating on its debt cut to junk by Moody’s Investors Service earlier this month and is cutting about 2,800 workers. In total, economists from Barclays and JPMorgan Chase & Co. estimated the Max production shutdown could subtract half a percentage point from U.S. gross domestic product in the first quarter. Investors were expecting total compensation to affected airlines to amount to about $10 billion, according to a survey conducted by Bernstein analyst Douglas Harned. If that sounds bad, consider that the baseline case among investors and analysts before Tuesday’s update was that Max deliveries would resume by March or April.The major U.S. airlines have all pulled the Max from their schedules through June in what they thought would be a conservative call. The logistical challenges of bringing jets out of storage and putting pilots through the simulator training that Boeing has now decided to recommend means that the airlines will likely have to go without their Max fleets for yet another peak travel season. That is likely to drive even more market share toward Delta Air Lines Inc., which doesn’t fly the Max and has been benefiting from that fact. The longer the grounding lasts, the more permanent those share gains may be. Either way, expect airlines to significantly increase their demands for compensation.The biggest pain will be felt by Boeing’s suppliers. A three-month production shutdown is one thing; a six-month halt is something else, entirely. Getting supplier factories humming to the point where they could meet Boeing’s Max production pace required a logistical miracle and some parts-makers actually used the first few months of the grounding to play catch-up. At a minimum, suppliers run the risk of workers leaving for more secure jobs amid a buoyant labor market. Taco Bell is offering a $100,000 salary for a restaurant manager position, for heaven’s sake. For others, the damage may be more lasting. Boeing enjoys an effective duopoly with Airbus SE that has helped buoy profits over the years and arguably protected it from greater financial pain in the form of canceled Max orders. The flip side of that is that some suppliers depend heavily on Boeing for their business. The biggest producers such as General Electric Co., Honeywell International Inc. and United Technologies Corp. will be able to weather the hit from a prolonged production halt; smaller suppliers risk going bankrupt.This will all come back to haunt Boeing once it’s finally ready to restart production. With a legitimate debate about the sustainability of air traffic growth at the levels needed to maintain demand, it’s not out of the question that the company might not ever reach its target of producing 57 Max jets per month. Air Lease Corp. Chairman Steven Udvar-Hazy said Monday that his company had urged Boeing to drop the Max name to make the plane more palatable for fliers. But the longer the grounding drags on, the likelihood increases that Boeing will need to make more than just a name change for the latest iteration of its 737 model and instead plow billions into a true successor. To contact the author of this story: Brooke Sutherland at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Beth Williams at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Brooke Sutherland is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering deals and industrial companies. She previously wrote an M&A column for Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Former FDIC chair Sheila Bair said Elizabeth Warren is "absolutely the best candidate" on policies related to the banking industry.
Yahoo Finance chats with PayPal CEO and Salesforce co-CEO Keith Block about shareholder capitalism on the sidelines of the 2020 World Economic Forum.
Greenpeace is calling out one of the biggest names in banking, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, and what it calls the bank’s lack of action in battling climate change.
Asset manager Cordiant Capital is looking to raise around $350 million for a telecoms infrastructure equity fund and has hired two veteran dealmakers as it looks to benefit from strong growth in mobile data usage. Canadian-based Cordiant is speaking to potential anchor investors for the fund, Cordiant IX, co-Chief Executive Benn Mikula told Reuters.
In sync with the bank's efforts to improve Consumer Banking segment, the CEO of BofA (BAC) mentions plans to double U.S. consumer market share.
J.P. Morgan (NYSE: JPM) today announced the creation of the J.P. Morgan Development Finance Institution (DFI) to expand its development-oriented financing activities in emerging markets. In consultation with leading development institutions, J.P. Morgan has created rules-based criteria to help identify business activities and opportunities that generate both financial and developmental returns.
(Bloomberg) -- JPMorgan Chase & Co. is building a group to provide more financing and advice for development in emerging markets, looking to use profit-making operations to support efforts by the international community.The lender hired Faheen Allibhoy, who spent almost two decades at the International Finance Corp., to run the new development finance institution, according to a statement Tuesday. She will work with JPMorgan’s bankers to identify transactions and investors.The unit, part of JPMorgan’s corporate and investment bank, will work with existing and prospective clients in government and the private sector. It estimates the firm can use investment banking transactions to finance development projects valued at more than $100 billion annually, according to the statement. Its markets businesses also will find ways to offer support.“By defining eligible transactions and anticipating their impact, we can help attract much-needed private investment to developing countries,” said Daniel Pinto, co-president of JPMorgan and chief of its corporate and investment bank.The United Nations estimates that achieving its sustainable development goals for issues including poverty, clean water and gender equality by 2030 will require as much as $7 trillion a year, with an annual funding shortfall of $2.5 trillion in developing countries. JPMorgan’s group will try to help narrow that gap.Allibhoy will be based at JPMorgan’s New York headquarters. Daniel Zelikow, global head of JPMorgan’s public sector group and co-head of the bank’s infrastructure finance and advisory unit, will chair the unit’s governing board, according to the statement.The bank said it created “rules-based” criteria to help identify opportunities and aims to generate both financial and developmental returns. The methodology was created with the International Finance Corp. and other groups. It will be reviewed periodically to reflect industry best practices.To contact the reporter on this story: Saijel Kishan in New York at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Tim Quinson at firstname.lastname@example.orgFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.