MIAMI, FLORIDA – NOVEMBER 06: Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase speaks onstage during day 2 of the America Business Forum at Kaseya Center on November 06, 2025 in Miami, Florida. (Photo by Alexander Tamargo/Getty Images for America Business Forum)
Getty Images for America Business Forum
Whatever the business, would you want to compete with Jamie Dimon? Market signals say no, that Dimon would win.
If any of this is doubted, readers need only consider what happened in 2024 when Dimon merely intimated about the possibility of retiring earlier than expected. $25 billion in market capitalization for JPMorgan quickly vanished.
It raises a useful question: what business lines would JPMorgan enter if the myriad regulations they and other banks endure on the city, state and federal level were less stringent? To say that JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and other U.S. banks would rapidly evolve is hopefully a statement of the obvious.
National and international brands all, their path into new lines of business would be smoother than for most. Factor in the demands of shareholders that they do more once free of myriad constraints, and their rapid expansion would be a given.
What you’ve read thus far is worth thinking about as critics of U.S. banks critique them for allegedly seeking limits on interest paid by stablecoin warehouses. Some will quickly interrupt to say that Coinbase et al can’t pay interest on stablecoin deposits due to existing laws. It’s true, but “rewards” on stablecoin holdings are interest in all ways but the name.
Banks are unhappy with the workaround, and their critics claim it’s because they don’t want to compete, that they would rather not suffer “destructive competition” from stablecoin warehouses that, if free to compete, would quickly put “stodgy” banks out of business. The critics are missing the point. Dimon instructs on the matter.
The notion that he would be cowed by competition belies the person that anyone reading this is aware of. Dimon isn’t running from competition allegedly emanating from crypto brokerages, rather he sees them attempting to operate as banks minus the endless rules and oversight that existing banks presently endure.
The implied point in heavy bank regulation is that as stewards of the savings of the American people, they require strict oversight. Wise minds can and will debate the previous assertion, including your writer here. The best regulation, by far, is competition.
By extension banks – and the health of customer deposits – would be on much more stable ground if free to compete free of constraint. This would include routinely buying up those who can’t compete. Alas, the world isn’t perfect, which means U.S. banks are once again required to operate under myriad constraints.
The same is not expected of crypto brokerages, thus the frustration inside banks. If crypto brokerages want to take on the risk of holding customer wealth, they should be willing to endure what banks endure. To which the critics say no, that the brokerages aren’t taking risks, that they don’t even hold somewhat risky loans as much they back their crypto deposits with dollars invested in Treasury securities and other assets whose risk is low and readily observable. Which is the point.
If we forget the risk associated with the dollar itself, we can’t forget that Silicon Valley Bank suffered an existential run a little over three years ago despite low-duration Treasury holdings and other low-risk assets. Which is the bigger point. Regulators don’t, nor did they know what is and isn’t low risk. Neither sometimes do banks.
The biggest U.S. banks recognize the above truth, which is why they’re big. More competition would render them even bigger, or not, so let them compete with other banks including crypto brokerages. If so, does anyone think Dimon would fear the new entrants to the banking sector?