Geschäftsstelle in Ihrer Nähe

Büro in Ihrer Nähe

Wirtschaft und Märkte

The opportunity in renewed U.S. industrial policy

01.06.2023

In the wake of globalization’s grim consequences, three new laws seek to reindustrialize the heartland.

Joe Seydl, Senior Markets Economist
Jessica Matthews, Global Head of Sustainable Investing
Ian Schaeffer, Global Investment Strategist

: Behind the U.S.’s largest commitment to industrial planning since the Cold War

Several decades ago, economists and policymakers made a strong case for globalization: If countries focused on making the things they’re relatively better at, global trade would become more efficient, spurring faster economic growth for everyone.

That theory became reality. But it had two grim consequences—if not quite unforeseen, then unexpectedly severe: U.S. labor participation fell off a cliff, and many blue-collar workers in American factories, particularly men, lost their jobs. Depression and death rates climbed, especially in the American Heartland.

Recently, another cost of what we think of as hyper-globalization has become clear. U.S. national security has been compromised, as companies have sent overseas strategically critical technology, including electronic and green energy components and military hardware. The deterioration of U.S. industrial capacity can hardly be overstated: Services now comprise nearly 80% of the national economy.1

The federal government is responding. Despite political polarization in Washington, lawmakers passed three major initiatives intended to raise the country’s industrial capacity. Together, the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act (CHIPS) represent the largest U.S. commitment to industrial policy since the Cold War.

Federal industrial policy has sometimes failed. Yet the government’s heavy hand has at other times created profound and lasting changes, particularly when it established a new system with self-reinforcing demand. Previous successes have relied exclusively on public funding. Today’s grand national experiment will see if public funds can be used to stimulate private capital holders so that, together, they can create a self-perpetuating market.

We think the new industrial policy, which seeks to decarbonize the U.S. economy and strengthen American industry, has the potential to reverse some of the devastation, while creating exciting, long-term investment opportunities.

Three recent federal acts begin the most ambitious industrial policy project since the Cold War era

Sources: J.P. Morgan Research, Credit Suisse, White House, Congressional Budget Office, Congressional Research Service. Estimates for industrial policy bills as of 2023. Estimate for Manhattan project as of 2009. Estimates for Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1958 as of 2022. Data for Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1958 reflects the 5-year average of 1958-1962. Industrial Policy Bills of 2021-2022 include the Inflation Reduction Act, the United States CHIPS and Science Act, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill). Public and private spending for industrial policy bills of 2021-2022 is based on cumulative expected spending over the next 10 years relative to cumulative expected US GDP. Estimates for private spending for the Inflation Reduction Act are sourced from Credit Suisse. Estimates for private spending resulting from the CHIPS and Science Act are sourced from J.P. Morgan Research. Data for Manhattan project reflects the peak year of funding of 1946. $117 billion of the $781 billion in public spending/tax incentives shown is direct public spending while the remaining $664 billion is tax incentives.
The chart describes total spending resulting from federal policy initiatives as % of GDP. The bar on the left describes the total spending from the Manhattan Project, which was at 0.4% of GDP. The bar in the middle describes the total spending from the Federal-Aid Highway Act, which was at 1.8% of GDP. The bar on the right describes the total spending from the Industrial Policy Bills of 2012-2022, which was 0.7% of GDP in total. It was also divided in private spending (0.4% GDP) and public spending (0.3% GDP).

Three recent policy bills include almost $2.4 trillion in funding

Sources: J.P. Morgan Research, Credit Suisse, White House, Congressional Budget Office, Congressional Research Service. Estimates for industrial policy bills as of 2023. Estimate for Manhattan project as of 2009. Estimates for Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1958 as of 2022. Data for Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1958 reflects the 5-year average of 1958-1962. Industrial Policy Bills of 2021-2022 include the Inflation Reduction Act, the United States CHIPS and Science Act, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Bipartsian Infrastructure Bill). Public and private spending for industrial policy bills of 2021-2022 is based on cumulative expected spending over the next 10 years relative to cumulative expected US GDP. Estimates for private spending for the Inflation Reduction Act are sourced from Credit Suisse. Estimates for private spending resulting from the CHIPS and Science Act are sourced from J.P. Morgan Research. Data for Manhattan project reflects the peak year of funding of 1946. $117 billion of the $781 billion in public spending/tax incentives shown is direct public spending while the remaining $664 billion is tax incentives.
The chart describes the three recent policy bills and their funding which added up to almost $2.4 trillion. The chart is a breakdown of how this $2.4 trillion funding is distributed among the three bills and specifies the size allocated to public spending and private capital. The bar on the right is the funding for Inflation Reduction Act, which is a total of $1660 billion divided in $781 billion for public spending and $879 billion for private capital. The bar in the middle is the funding for CHIPs and Science Act of 2022, which is a total of $167 billion divided in $52 billion for public spending and $115 billion for private capital. The bar on the right is the funding for Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, which is a total of $550 billion. The entire amount is public spending in this case.

Renewed U.S. industrial policy supports our view that in the current market cycle (and perhaps for several years after), “real economy” stocks should outperform the growth stocks that dominated the 2010s. We like real economy equities that tend to offer high free cash flow and dividend yields (and companies improving shareholder returns; for example, through dividend growth).

Among energy transition stocks, we favor manufacturers of clean energy technology over site developers and utilities, as we’ll explain. We also like investing in energy transition infrastructure, such as battery storage projects. Among corporate recipients of CHIPS Act benefits, we prefer semiconductor companies that have close ties to the U.S. military. Military spending, currently at a secular low relative to GDP, may rise in the years ahead.

Hyper-globalization’s impact on the American worker

Policymakers and economists understood from the start that globalization would lead to some job loss and economic hardship for certain communities. However, they thought economic gains would far outweigh losses and the bigger pie would compensate those affected, through worker retraining and other types of redistribution.

The overall efficiency of the global economy did improve—and the U.S. consumer benefited spectacularly. By one estimate, for every U.S. manufacturing job lost due to soaring trade with China in the 2000s, the U.S. consumer gained about USD100,000, or USD200 billion in total.2

However, there were two practical problems with the way globalization unfolded. The first problem was that globalization did not happen gradually, and its effects were not absorbed smoothly. In the 1970s and 1980s, manufacturing job losses due to globalization (and automation) were steady. Even in the 1990s when globalization’s pace was accelerating, factory payrolls held up. But in the 2000s, after China joined the World Trade Organization, globalization accelerated rapidly. The camel’s back broke, and manufacturing payrolls fell off a cliff.

A total of 5.7 million factory jobs were lost from 2000 to 2010—nearly 10 times more than during the previous 30 years, from 1970 to 2000. Redistribution and worker retraining can be effective if change is slow and predictable, but in the event of a shock like this, there is only so much worker support systems can do.3

Manufacturing jobs plummeted as global goods trade rose

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Haver Analytics. Data as of 2022.  The speed of the change in global goods trade relative to global industrial production is a measure of the pace of globalization.
The chart describes the decline of the number of manufacturing jobs in the US as global trade for goods to industrial production rose. The manufacturing jobs line started at 17847 in 1970 and fluctuated near that level until it reached 17265 in 2000. Then it declined rapidly and dramatically to bottom at 11529 in 2010 before slightly trending up until the last data point at 12827 in 2022. The global trade for goods to industrial production line started at 53.7% in 1991 for the first data point. Then it went steadily up until it reached a high point at 99.6% in 2008 before heading down to 95.3% in 2009. Then it trended slightly upward until the last data point came in at 104.5% in 2022.

Workers, especially men, had a hard time adjusting to the shock of massive manufacturing job losses. Social, health and economic pathologies have bloomed as a consequence.4

The share of working-age men not in the labor force rose from 5.7% at the start of the 1980s to 11.4% as of 2022. But the pain wasn’t smoothly distributed. It was concentrated in the Eastern Heartland, states east of the Mississippi River from Mississippi to Michigan (excluding the Atlantic Coast). That region’s mortality rates soared above the coasts’ and the Western Heartland’s.5

Manufacturing job loss coincided with rising opioid use

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, Drug Enforcement Administration, J.P. Morgan Asset Management. Data as of November 2022.
This chart shows the percent change in U.S. manufacturing jobs (10-year percent change) and the opioid prescriptions per capita in morphine milligram equivalents. The data range is form 1960 through 2021. US manufacturing jobs remained relatively rangebound between 10 to -20% from 1960 until 2000. Starting around 2000, US manufacturing job losses declined rapidly and reached a low point in 2009 of -41%. US manufacturing then began climbing until 2020 when it breached above zero for the first time in decades to reach 1%. The Opioid prescriptions per capita dataset begins in 2001 at 189 morphine milligram equivalents. The number of opioid prescriptions per capita then steadily climbed until 2021 to peak at 801. From there, the opioid prescriptions per capita slowly declined until 2001 to reach 445.

Mortality rates diverged geographically

Source: Austin, Benjamin, Edward Glaeser, and Lawrence Summers. “Jobs for the Heartland: Place-Based Policies in 21st-Century America.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2018, 151–232. The authors “refer to states formed before 1840 as the eastern heartland, and to those formed after 1840 as the western heartland.”
This chart shows the mortality rates (ratio of deaths per 100 people) in three different geographic areas of the United States from 1970 through 2015. The three regions shown include the eastern heartland, western heartland, and coasts. The eastern heartland includes Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. The western heartland includes Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The coastal states include Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Washington, Oregon, and California. All three regions have roughly similar mortality rates from 1970 until 1995. Mortality rates gradually declined from a level of 0.5 in 1970 to 0.3 in 1995. At that point, the mortality rat of the western heartland and the costs began declining and reached 0.25 by the decade of 2010. The eastern heartland mortality rate did not experience the same decline. The eastern heartland’s mortality rate remained elevated at around 0.35 from 1995 through 2014.

Had globalization not occurred as an abrupt shock but progressed more steadily and predictably, it is safe to say that less of these pathologies would have emerged.

How outsourcing opened national security vulnerabilities

Globalization’s impact on national security also didn’t exactly go according to plan. Its architects assumed that after the Soviet Union collapsed, the global economy would reap a “peace dividend” indefinitely. And so it largely did, in the decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

But war, and the threat of it, eventually reemerged. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, then invaded Ukraine in 2022. China in 2021 tested a hypersonic missile system capable of evading U.S. defenses.6 Governments started to question globalization through a national security lens. More specifically, governments in the advanced economies began to realize GDPs based primarily on services are a vulnerability.

Emmanuel Todd, an influential French historian and sociologist, recently wrote, “Western power, measured on the basis of GDP, is fictitious.”7 We think that is an overstatement, but helpfully provocative. While the U.S.’s GDP may outstrip China’s and Russia’s, it has a low non-services share of GDP and fewer military personnel.

The aforementioned U.S. social and health pathologies also create a national security vulnerability. A 2020 Pentagon study found that more than three-quarters of Americans aged 18–24 were medically unfit for military service. Obesity was the most widespread health problem.8

U.S. GDP outstrips that of China and Russia, but the non-services share is low and its military is smaller

Source (left): World Bank. Data as of 2022. Sources (right): World Bank, International Institute for Strategic Studies. Data as of 2021.
There are two charts shown here. The chart on the left describes the Gross Domestic Product of United States vs China vs Russia. For United States, the left side bar shows that the Gross Domestic Product is at 26185. For China, the middle bar shows that the Gross Domestic Product is at 19244. For Russia, the right side bar shows that the Gross Domestic Product is at 2136. The chart on the right is broken up into two sections. The left section describes the non-services percentage share of GDP for US vs China vs Russia. For United States, the left side bar shows that the non-services percentage share of GDP is 18.3%. For China, the middle bar shows that the non-services percentage share of GDP is 45.5%. For Russia, the right side bar shows that the non-services percentage share of GDP is 44%. The right section describes the total military personnel for US vs China vs Russia (million). For United States, the left side bar shows that the total military personnel is at 2.1 million. For China, the middle bar shows that the total military personnel is at 4.0 million. For Russia, the right side bar shows that the total military personnel is at 3.7 million.

What is industrial policy? The case of the U.S. interstate highway system

Industrial policy can be defined as “an effort by a government to change the sectoral structure of production toward sectors it believes offer greater prospects for accelerated growth [or for national security reasons] than would be generated by a typical process of evolution according to comparative advantage.”9 In other words, it is an intervention by the government to go against market forces.

Recent policy initiatives are intended to reduce the services share in GDP and raise the nation’s industrial capacity. Politically, there is now a bipartisan consensus that this is a necessity.10

The history of U.S. industrial policy includes numerous examples of failure. The Synthetic Fuels Corporation, set up in 1980, failed spectacularly in reducing dependence on foreign sources of oil. But done right, industrial policy can create profound change that reinforces itself over time.

The largest and one of the most successful examples in U.S. history is the Federal-Aid Highway Act, passed in 1956 to build the interstate highway system. It was designed to connect cities and towns, lift productivity and, as today, improve national security. Mindful of the Cold War, the network of highways would allow military resources to be rapidly mobilized.

The government played a huge upfront role. By the early 1960s, U.S. public spending on highways totaled 1.8% of GDP. But as more drivers took to the road in the late 1960s and 1970s, the Highway Trust Fund, set up to maintain the roads, grew. The fund derives its revenue from gasoline and diesel fuel sales taxes. Over time, its balance started to rise. By the 1980s, public spending on highways fell to around 1% of GDP, financed entirely by the system’s own revenues from the public.

The fund’s surplus eventually eroded after the 2008 financial crisis. People were driving less (fewer tolls collected) and cars’ fuel efficiency improved (generating less in gas taxes). Highway maintenance costs kept rising. Since 2008, the Treasury Department has plugged the fund’s shortfalls with fiscal transfers.

The U.S. Highway Trust Fund was self-financing and ran a surplus for decades following highway construction

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2018. Closing balance is 0.22% including transfers and -0.48% excluding transfers. 
The chart describes the surplus or deficit of the U.S. Highway Trust Fund as a percentage share of GDP. A diverging line starts to emerge in 2008 where fiscal transfers were made from the Treasury Department to plug the fund’s shortfalls. For the line before 2008, the first data point came in at 0.11% in 1957. Then it rose to a high point at 0.57% in 1975. Before falling to 0.11% in 2007. Then the line diverges into two lines, one including fiscal transfers and one excluding fiscal transfers. For the line including transfers: The data came in at 0.11% in 2008 and peaked at 0.37% in 2016. Then it ended lower at 0.22% in 2018. For the line excluding transfers: The data came in at 0.06% in 2008. Then it went all the way down and entered negative territory. It ended and bottomed at -0.48% in 2018.

Whatever its later financial troubles, the government, playing a heavy hand upfront, set off a system that became self-financing with its own internal source of demand. And still today, the interstate highway system is profoundly important to U.S. transportation infrastructure: While accounting for only 1% of all road mileage, it accounts for 24% of all vehicle miles driven in rural America.11

The U.S. government is attempting to do something similar today when it comes to decarbonizing the economy, but rather than relying entirely on public financing, it aims to provide a set of carrots that stimulate private sector investment.

The Inflation Reduction Act: Carrots for Players in the Energy Transition

The Inflation Reduction Act is a misnomer: IRA is an energy bill. It, and CHIPS, are designed to use public funds to stimulate private capital investment, using subsidies and tax credits. These enticements to private-sector partners taper off, and then fully phase out once renewables are cost-competitive without government support, and emissions targets (reducing electricity sector emissions by 75% by 203212) are met.

IRA tax credits and subsidies are designed to push down the cost of renewable energy production and, in turn, a competitive power market should push down consumer energy prices over time, spurring a faster adoption of renewables.13 Economies of scale and technology learning curves have already resulted in sharp declines in the cost of wind and solar power. By 2030, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (NEF) projects that the cost of generating wind and solar power will be well below average wholesale power prices as a result of the IRA investment/production tax credits, which are expected to drive net costs (for solar) to just 15USD to 25USD per MWh (chart below).14 If that’s the case, then there should be substantial continued investment in wind and solar generation, constrained only by the speed with which additions can be integrated into the grid.15

The increased expected cost competitiveness of renewables resulting from the IRA already appears to be accelerating private-sector capital spending commitments. In the subsequent eight months since legislators signed the bill into law in August 2022, companies announced more than USD150 billion in private capital investment for U.S. utility-scale clean energy projects and manufacturing facilities—surpassing total investment in these projects commissioned from 2017–2021.16

The IRA is pushing down expected future cost of renewable energy, helping to jumpstart and accelerate private investment

Source:  BloombergNEF. Data as of April 2023. The 5 regions of New York, California, Texas, PJM, MISO collectively represent approximately 54% of the total U.S. power market. Pre-IRA costs shown in $/MWh (Real 2020) and post-IRA costs shown in $/MWh (Real 2022). 2030 power prices shown as $/MWh (Real 2022).
This chart shows levelized cost of energy (LCOE) estimates for solar and wind energy from 2021 and 2023 for five regions of the US electricity grid (representing 54% of the national market). The regions shown are New York, California, Texas, PJM, and MISO. The data for 2021 represents pre-IRA data and is shown in $/MWh (Real 2020). The data for 2023 represents post-IRA data and is shown in $/MWh (Real 2022). MWh stands for megawatt hour. The 2030 forward power price (inflation adjusted) is shown for each of the 5 regions to shown the current market estimate for the price of power in the year 2030. The pre-IRA data for solar and wind energy is significantly higher for each of the 5 regions than the post-IRA data due to the subsidies and tax credits associated with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. In most cases, the pre-IRA LCOEs are higher than the 2030 forward power price and the post-IRA LCOEs are significantly lower than the 2030 forward power price.

How can industrial policy potentially impact investors? Changing profitability expectations

We think the energy transition that the IRA seeks to catalyze is likely to play out more visibly at the company level, as its incentives take hold and change profitability expectations.

The IRA offers manufacturers tax credits.17 That’s in part why the largest profit margin increases are likely to accrue to manufacturers. Single-stock analysts at J.P. Morgan Research are starting to incorporate these tax credits into their modeling of financial statements. Their initial conclusion: Expect big effects. They expect that by 2025, the IRA can double the profit margin for a representative renewables technology manufacturer versus the no-IRA baseline.18

Incorporating IRA subsidies suggests a doubling of profitability for a representative renewables tech maker

Source: J.P. Morgan North America Research. Data as of 2023. IRA: Inflation Reduction Act. GAAP: Generally accepted accounting principles.
The chart describes the GAAP gross profit margin for a renewable tech maker from 2018 through 2025 as an index where 2018=100. It also describes the difference between the gross profit margins for that renewable tech maker with and without IRA tax credits in the years after 2022. The line begins in 2018 at 100 and remains relatively flat in 2019. It rises slightly in 2020 and 2021 before falling sharply in 2022 to a low. At this point, the line showing no IRA tax credits diverges from the line showing IRA tax credits. The line including IRA tax credit rises significantly in every year after 2022 to reach 201 in 2023, 260 in 2024, and 292 in 2025. The line without the IRA tax credits also rises from 2022, but not as significantly as the line with IRA tax credits. The line without IRA tax credits reaches 89 in 2023, 134 in 2024, and 148 in 2025.

Higher expected profitability is likely to drive up capex as firms begin to see more clearly their likely returns from newly expanded production. The end result: expanded renewables generation capacity relative to the pre-IRA baseline. Bloomberg NEF estimates that by 2030, there will be about 88,000 MW of additional utility-scale solar and wind capacity as a result of the IRA. That’s roughly the capacity of the Texas electrical grid in 2020.19

Project developers, however, may not experience spectacular profit gains. The IRA’s incentives for developers seek to remedy the geographic inequalities that grew during hyper-globalization. Under the IRA, project developers are entitled to multiple “stackable” investment tax credits, if their energy production is sited in a low-income area and/or an “energy community”20—that is, in the Eastern Heartland areas where shuttered coal and brownfield sites stand to benefit.

Another reason manufacturers’ profit margins are likely to increase more than developers’ is that under the IRA, even some of the developer credits will likely accrue more to manufacturers because of the market structure for critical components. For developers to receive the “domestic content” credit, for example, they need to purchase components from U.S. manufacturers of renewables technology, and there are relatively few of them today. Being highly sought after can give these manufacturers a new premium in pricing power that they may pass on to their customers, likely eroding the tax credit for developers—at least until domestic manufacturing capacity expands.21

The potential macroeconomic effects of renewed U.S. industrial policy

We do not expect large effects on trend GDP growth over the next decade. These laws’ economic multipliers are expected to be mostly low. The IRA’s intent is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to the extent this is achieved, it will be a non-GDP benefit for U.S. residents and the global population.

Nor is the CHIPS Act meant to raise GDP. The United States is a high-cost destination for semiconductor chip production. (An executive from Taiwanese chip maker TSMC has said in an earnings call that production in the United States costs four times more than in Taiwan.22) It is highly inefficient to reshore the industry, especially considering semiconductor chips are among the most easily transportable goods in the global supply chain. Yet CHIPS may increase domestic semiconductor-chip security, serving as a hedge against any future supply disruptions—a benefit, but not to GDP.

For these reasons, we wouldn’t be surprised if the economic multipliers from the IRA and the CHIPS Act were close to zero. To be sure, these bills may shift the composition of investment demand, away from housing toward manufacturing (which could be problematic, given the chronic U.S. housing shortage).

On the other hand, the third new law, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, is expected to boost GDP through traditional productivity effects. But the addition is too small to meaningfully accelerate trend growth.23

New laws are expected to have little effect on long-run inflation expectations, but may spur more short-run variability

These three new laws aren’t likely to change long-run expected inflation, which is anchored by monetary policy and the effect it has on the labor market (as the fastest pace of rate hikes in 40 years has reminded us). The laws may well change short-run inflation variability, however, by increasing resource nationalism globally; barriers may create unexpected pressure on commodity prices in the years ahead.

To see what that looks like, consider the inflation shock the pandemic brought about. Remarkably, it didn’t alter long-term inflation expectations, yet it created tremendous short-run variability (chart below). The energy transition may cause similar inflation dynamics in the future, although likely not as dramatic (COVID hit suddenly, while the energy transition will spread over years and decades).24

Nevertheless, a more variable inflation outlook may mean the Treasury market’s current pricing of inflation risk premia is too low.25

The pandemic brought tremendous short-run variability in inflation expectations, while long-run didn’t change

Sources: Wolters Kluwer, Blue Chip Economic and Financial Indicators, Haver Analytics. Data as of May 2023.
The chart describes the 1 year and 7-10 year inflation expectations for headline CPI yoy. For 1 year ahead CPI consensus, the line started at 3.5% in January 1995. It went down until it reached 1.8% in March 2004. Then it went up to 2.7% in June 2008. Before it fell all the way to 1.2% in December 2008. Then it recovered and went up until it peaked at 3.5% in March 2022. Before falling to the most recent data point at 2.6% in April 2023. For 7-10 year ahead CPI consensus, the line started at 3.4% in January 1995. Then it trended downward and reached the most recent data point at 2.1% in April 2023.

Renewed industrial policy supports our expectation that the current market cycle is likely to be a “real economy” cycle, after the “growth cycle” of a decade ago. Within this real economy thesis, we like equities that can potentially offer high free cash flow and dividend yields, including those companies shifting their focus toward shareholder returns (e.g., dividend and buyback growth). When it comes to the energy transition specifically, we favor the manufacturers of clean energy technology over both the developers and the utilities. (Many of the IRA’s subsidies for developers will likely accrue more to domestic manufacturers.)

When it comes to energy-transition commodities, we note that China currently dominates the supply chains for many critical minerals related to renewables, leading the world in production of aluminum refining and smelting (67% of global capacity), lithium and cobalt refining (80% and 66%, respectively) and graphite production and refining (about 80%)—along with many other critical minerals.26 We also note that while the IRA offers U.S. consumers a tax credit for buying an electric vehicle, half the credit disappears if vehicles do not meet the requirements for critical minerals to be extracted, processed and/or recycled in North America, or in a country with which the United States has a free trade agreement.27

In light of this, exposure to commodities necessary for the transition to renewables may offer attractive investment returns less correlated to a typical portfolio of stocks and bonds. Another favorable way of gaining exposure to the energy transition outside of stocks and bonds would be direct exposure to energy-transition infrastructure projects. Two attractive examples are battery storage and recycling.

When it comes to the CHIPS Act’s implications, we prefer U.S.-domiciled foundries and integrated device makers (IDMs) that have close ties to the U.S. military—in other words, investments in technologies that have so-called “dual use” capabilities. Military spending is currently secularly low relative to GDP, and we think there is a good chance it may rise in the years ahead, given how the Ukraine War is rapidly depleting NATO stockpiles,28 and the rising U.S.-China military tensions in the South China Sea.

There are upside risks in the years ahead to U.S. military spending, which is currently historically low relative to GDP

Sources: United States Census Bureau, United States Bureau of Economic Analysis, usgovernmentspending.com. Data as of 2022.
The chart describes the US defense spending as a % of GDP in a line format. The first data point came in at 1.57% in 1901. It stayed flat until it came in at 0.96% in 1916. Then it rose and peaked at 22.52% in 1919. Before falling back to 1.79% in 1922. It stayed relatively flat until it reached 2.25% in 1940. Then it reached a record high point at 41.52% in 1945. Before falling to 7.79% in 1948. Then it climbed to a high point at 17.39% in 1953. Then it trended downward until the last data point at 4.37% in 2022.

In sum, while the new industrial policy was designed to decarbonize the U.S. economy and reindustrialize the American Heartland after the devastation wrought by hyper-globalization, it also includes important incentives to stimulate private investment. We think it will usher in many interesting long-term investment opportunities.

1World Bank. Data as of 2023.

2Measured for 2000–2007. The effect comes from lower prices (relative to the counterfactual) from greater trade with China. The price effect was found to be about two percentage points, so multiplying by nominal GDP of $10.3 trillion in 2000 yields a gain to U.S. consumers of about USD200 billion, or USD100,000 per manufacturing job lost due to offshoring the two million total jobs lost. Xavier Jaravel and Erick Sager, “What are the Price Effects of Trade? Evidence from the U.S. and Implications for Quantitative Trade Models,” Bureau of Labor Statistics Working Paper 506, September 2018.

3Also, the United States offers fewer support systems than to most other OECD countries. Lane Kenworthy, Social Democratic Capitalism, Oxford University Press, 2019.

4David H. Autor, David Dorn and Gordon H. Hanson, “The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States,” American Economic Review 103, no. 6, October 2013; Adam Dean and Simeon Kimmel, “Free trade and opioid overdose death in the United States,” SSM—Population Health 8, August 2019.

5Benjamin A. Austin, Edward L. Glaeser and Lawrence H. Summers, “Jobs for the Heartland: Place-Based Policies in 21st Century America,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 24548, April 2018.

6The missiles are said to evade detection by flying at low altitudes over Antarctica. General Mark Milley, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said China’s test launch was “very close” to a “Sputnik moment.” David E. Sanger and William J. Broad, “China’s Weapon Tests Close to a ‘Sputnik Moment,’ U.S. General Says,” New York Times, October 27, 2021.

7“Western economic power, measured on the basis of GDP, is fictitious,” International Affairs, September 25, 2022; Emmanuel Todd, “Face à la Russie, l’Occident croyait voler à 10 000 m d’altitude. Il vole à 350 m,” Marianne, July 9, 2022.

82020 Qualified Military Available Study, U.S. Department of Defense Office of People Analytics, 2022.

9Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Euijin Jung, Scoring 50 Years of U.S. Industrial Policy, 1970–2020, Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2021.

10According to William Galston, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute and former Deputy Assistant to President Clinton for Domestic Policy, “As recently as a decade ago, ‘industrial policy’ was anathema to elites in both parties. Along with many other economic issues, they have changed their stance on this matter, and they will enjoy public support if they choose to invest in the technologies that will define the economic and national security competition with China in coming decades.” Brookings Institute, March 2021.

11Matthew Turner, Gilles Duranton and Geetika Nagpal, “Transportation Infrastructure in the U.S.,” NBER Working Paper 27254, May 2020/.

12The reduction goal is from 2022 levels.

13Prior to the IRA, the adoption of renewables was playing out slowly in the United States, rising from just under 10% of total electricity consumed in the early 2000s to 21% by 2022. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review.

14It should be noted that the chart compares expectations of costs in 2030 to today’s market determined 2030 forward power prices. The logic is that market-determined prices today should be based on current technologies, which are largely non-renewables, so effectively the chart is illustrating the cost-competitiveness increase for renewables relative to non-renewables as a result of the IRA.

15There are serious pitfalls when considering the so-called “levelized cost of energy” from renewables as the basis of comparison against non-renewable power sources. As Michael Cembalest, Chairman of Market and Investment Strategy at J.P. Morgan Asset & Wealth Management, has noted, the problem with LCOEs is that they don’t account for (a) the need for backup power and storage for when renewables are not generating, (b) how the value of electricity supplied changes throughout the day, and (c) the cost of overbuilding renewable capacity to meet demand in a deeply decarbonized system. Michael Cembalest, “Growing Pains: The Renewable Transition in Adolescence,” Eye on the Market, J.P. Morgan, March 28, 2023. For these reasons, the emissions reductions policymakers are assuming will be met as a result of the IRA may be too aggressive.

16Clean Energy Investing in America, American Clean Power, April 2023.

17The relevant credits are 45C and 45X; 45C is tax credit for companies to take against the cost of building factories to manufacture components for renewable energy projects; 45X is a tax credit for each renewables component manufactured. The two cannot be “stacked,” meaning the 45X credit is not available for components made at a factory that already benefited from the 45C credit. “Federal Tax Credits for Solar Manufacturers,” U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, October 2022.

18The mechanics of how IRA tax credits boost profitability for manufacturers is, most typically, via the direct pay option: Many or most manufacturers don’t have large tax liabilities to offset, so they opt for direct cash payments from the government (paid as part of the year-end tax filing process), which lowers their COGS (cost of goods sold) and thereby raises their margins. Most manufacturers seem to be opting for 45X (rather than 45C), which is an implicit bet that factory utilization and output will be high, translating into higher credit payments compared to 45C, which is based on the overall upfront investment of a new manufacturing site.

19Nusaiba Mizan, “Fact-Check: Does the Texas grid have 15% more power generation capacity than last year?” Austin American-Statesman, April 3, 2022.

20Energy communities are areas where a coal-fired power plant has closed since 2010, or a coal mine has closed since 2000; or a metropolitan or non-metropolitan statistical area where 0.17% or more of direct employment, or at least 25% of local tax revenues, are related to extraction, processing, transport or storage of coal, oil or natural gas, and where unemployment is at or above the national average in the previous year.

21Some general information on those developer tax credits: Before the IRA, renewable energy production site developers for solar could receive a 26% federal tax credit. Now, the IRA’s full “stack” of credits could be as high as 70%. A developer could receive one 30% tax credit for facilities meeting certain labor standards, which rises to 40% for investments in facilities using U.S.-made “domestic content,” and which rises further to 50% if the facility is in an “energy” community, and finally to 60%–70% if the project site is located in a low-income area and/or meets low-income housing qualifications. The domestic content qualifications are satisfied if (1) 100% of the steel or iron used in a qualifying project is produced in the United States; and (2) 40% of the manufactured products used in constructing the project are produced in the United States. For the definition of a low-income community, see “Initial Guidance Establishing Program to Allocate Environmental Justice Solar and Wind Capacity Limitation Under Section 48(e),” Internal Revenue Service, February 13, 2023.

22John Liu and Paul Mozur, “Inside Taiwanese Chip Giant, a U.S. Expansion Stokes Tensions,” New York Times, February 22, 2023.

23The Congressional Budget Office estimated that in a deficit neutralized scenario, the IRA would increase GDP only on the order of 0.05–0.1ppts over the next decade.

24It would be an altogether different story, though, if the Federal Reserve were to change its inflation target, as some think tanks are advocating. We are not expecting this, at least not in the near term, but it is something to continually monitor. Justin Bloesch, “A New Framework for Targeting Inflation: Aiming for a Range of 2 to 3.5 Percent,” Roosevelt Institute, November 17, 2022.

25We say this as a secular (not cyclical) statement. If the U.S. economy were to slip into a recession in the near term, we would expect Treasury bonds to serve as an effective hedge against declines in risk assets.

26Cullen Hendrix, “How to Avoid a New Cold War Over Critical Minerals,” Foreign Policy, November 22, 2022.

27And the other half disappears if vehicles do not meet percentage requirements for battery components produced in North America. For the full details surrounding EV tax credit requirements, see “If I buy a new electric vehicle will I qualify for the full federal tax credit up to $7,500?,” Electrek.

28“NATO chief says Ukraine’s ammunition use outstripping supply,” Associated Press, February 13, 2023.

Erfahren Sie mehr darüber, wie Sie Kunde der Private Bank von J.P. Morgan werden können.

Bitte erzählen Sie uns mehr über sich, und unser Team wird sich mit Ihnen in Verbindung setzen.

*Pflichtfelder

Erfahren Sie mehr darüber, wie Sie Kunde der Private Bank von J.P. Morgan werden können.

Bitte erzählen Sie uns mehr über sich, und unser Team wird sich mit Ihnen in Verbindung setzen.

Geben Sie Ihren Vornamen ein

> oder < sind nicht erlaubt

Only 40 characters allowed

Geben Sie Ihren Nachnamen ein

> oder < sind nicht erlaubt

Only 40 characters allowed

Wählen Sie Ihr Wohnsitzland aus

Geben Sie eine gültige Adresse ein

> oder < sind nicht erlaubt

Only 150 characters allowed

Geben Sie Ihre Stadt ein

> oder < sind nicht erlaubt

Only 35 characters allowed

Wählen Sie Ihren Staat aus

> or < are not allowed

Geben Sie Ihre Postleitzahl ein

Bitte geben Sie eine gültige Postleitzahl ein

> or < are not allowed

Only 10 characters allowed

Geben Sie Ihre Postleitzahl ein

Bitte geben Sie eine gültige Postleitzahl ein

> or < are not allowed

Only 10 characters allowed

Geben Sie Ihre Landesvorwahl ein

Geben Sie Ihre Landesvorwahl ein

> or < are not allowed

Geben Sie Ihre Telefonnummer ein

Ihre Telefonnummer muss aus 10 Ziffern bestehen

Bitte geben Sie eine gültige Telefonnummer ein

> or < are not allowed

Only 15 characters allowed

Geben Sie Ihre Telefonnummer ein

Bitte geben Sie eine gültige Telefonnummer ein

> or < are not allowed

Only 15 characters allowed

Erzählen Sie uns mehr über sich

0/1000

Only 1000 characters allowed

> or < are not allowed

Das Kontrollkästchen wurde nicht angeklickt

Zuletzt angesehen

Wichtige Informationen

Key Risks

This material is for information purposes only, and may inform you of certain products and services offered by private banking businesses, part of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (“JPM”). Products and services described, as well as associated fees, charges and interest rates, are subject to change in accordance with the applicable account agreements and may differ among geographic locations. Not all products and services are offered at all locations. If you are a person with a disability and need additional support accessing this material, please contact your J.P. Morgan team or email us at accessibility.support@jpmorgan.com for assistance. Please read all Important Information.

GENERAL RISKS & CONSIDERATIONS

Any views, strategies or products discussed in this material may not be appropriate for all individuals and are subject to risks. Investors may get back less than they invested, and past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. Asset allocation/diversification does not guarantee a profit or protect against loss. Nothing in this material should be relied upon in isolation for the purpose of making an investment decision. You are urged to consider carefully whether the services, products, asset classes (e.g., equities, fixed income, alternative investments, commodities, etc.) or strategies discussed are suitable to your needs. You must also consider the objectives, risks, charges and expenses associated with an investment service, product or strategy prior to making an investment decision. For this and more complete information, including discussion of your goals/situation, contact your J.P. Morgan team.

NON-RELIANCE

Certain information contained in this material is believed to be reliable; however, JPM does not represent or warrant its accuracy, reliability or completeness, or accept any liability for any loss or damage (whether direct or indirect) arising out of the use of all or any part of this material. No representation or warranty should be made with regard to any computations, graphs, tables, diagrams or commentary in this material, which are provided for illustration/ reference purposes only. The views, opinions, estimates and strategies expressed in this material constitute our judgment based on current market conditions and are subject to change without notice. JPM assumes no duty to update any information in this material in the event that such information changes. Views, opinions, estimates and strategies expressed herein may differ from those expressed by other areas of JPM, views expressed for other purposes or in other contexts, and this material should not be regarded as a research report. Any projected results and risks are based solely on hypothetical examples cited, and actual results and risks will vary depending on specific circumstances. Forward-looking statements should not be considered as guarantees or predictions of future events.

Nothing in this document shall be construed as giving rise to any duty of care owed to, or advisory relationship with, you or any third party. Nothing in this document shall be regarded as an offer, solicitation, recommendation or advice (whether financial, accounting, legal, tax or other) given by J.P. Morgan and/or its officers or employees, irrespective of whether or not such communication was given at your request. J.P. Morgan and its affiliates and employees do not provide tax, legal or accounting advice. You should consult your own tax, legal and accounting advisors before engaging in any financial transactions.

Your investments and potential conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest will arise whenever JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. or any of its affiliates (together, “J.P. Morgan”) have an actual or perceived economic or other incentive in its management of our clients’ portfolios to act in a way that benefits J.P. Morgan. Conflicts will result, for example (to the extent the following activities are permitted in your account): (1) when J.P. Morgan invests in an investment product, such as a mutual fund, structured product, separately managed account or hedge fund issued or managed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. or an affiliate, such as J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc.; (2) when a J.P. Morgan entity obtains services, including trade execution and trade clearing, from an affiliate; (3) when J.P. Morgan receives payment as a result of purchasing an investment product for a client’s account; or (4) when J.P. Morgan receives payment for providing services (including shareholder servicing, recordkeeping or custody) with respect to investment products purchased for a client’s portfolio. Other conflicts will result because of relationships that J.P. Morgan has with other clients or when J.P. Morgan acts for its own account.

Investment strategies are selected from both J.P. Morgan and third-party asset managers and are subject to a review process by our manager research teams. From this pool of strategies, our portfolio construction teams select those strategies we believe fit our asset allocation goals and forward-looking views in order to meet the portfolio's investment objective.

As a general matter, we prefer J.P. Morgan managed strategies. We expect the proportion of J.P. Morgan managed strategies will be high (in fact, up to 100 percent) in strategies such as, for example, cash and high-quality fixed income, subject to applicable law and any account-specific considerations.

While our internally managed strategies generally align well with our forward-looking views, and we are familiar with the investment processes as well as the risk and compliance philosophy of the firm, it is important to note that J.P. Morgan receives more overall fees when internally managed strategies are included. We offer the option of choosing to exclude J.P. Morgan managed strategies (other than cash and liquidity products) in certain portfolios.

The Six Circles Funds are U.S.-registered mutual funds managed by J.P. Morgan and sub-advised by third parties. Although considered internally managed strategies, JPMC does not retain a fee for fund management or other fund services.

LEGAL ENTITY, BRAND & REGULATORY INFORMATION

In the United States, bank deposit accounts and related services, such as checking, savings and bank lending, are offered by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Member FDIC.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its affiliates (collectively “JPMCB”) offer investment products, which may include bank-managed investment accounts and custody, as part of its trust and fiduciary services. Other investment products and services, such as brokerage and advisory accounts, are offered through J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (“JPMS”), a member of FINRA and SIPC. Insurance products are made available through Chase Insurance Agency, Inc. (CIA), a licensed insurance agency, doing business as Chase Insurance Agency Services, Inc. in Florida. JPMCB, JPMS and CIA are affiliated companies under the common control of JPM. Products not available in all states.

In Germany, this material is issued by J.P. Morgan SE, with its registered office at Taunustor 1 (TaunusTurm), 60310 Frankfurt am Main, Germany, authorized by the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin) and jointly supervised by the BaFin, the German Central Bank (Deutsche Bundesbank) and the European Central Bank (ECB). In Luxembourg, this material is issued by J.P. Morgan SE – Luxembourg Branch, with registered office at European Bank and Business Centre, 6 route de Treves, L-2633, Senningerberg, Luxembourg, authorized by the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin) and jointly supervised by the BaFin, the German Central Bank (Deutsche Bundesbank) and the European Central Bank (ECB); J.P. Morgan SE – Luxembourg Branch is also supervised by the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF); registered under R.C.S Luxembourg B255938. In the United Kingdom, this material is issued by J.P. Morgan SE – London Branch, registered office at 25 Bank Street, Canary Wharf, London E14 5JP, authorized by the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin) and jointly supervised by the BaFin, the German Central Bank (Deutsche Bundesbank) and the European Central Bank (ECB); J.P. Morgan SE – London Branch is also supervised by the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority. In Spain, this material is distributed by J.P. Morgan SE, Sucursal en España, with registered office at Paseo de la Castellana, 31, 28046 Madrid, Spain, authorized by the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin) and jointly supervised by the BaFin, the German Central Bank (Deutsche Bundesbank) and the European Central Bank (ECB); J.P. Morgan SE, Sucursal en España is also supervised by the Spanish Securities Market Commission (CNMV); registered with Bank of Spain as a branch of J.P. Morgan SE under code 1567. In Italy, this material is distributed by J.P. Morgan SE – Milan Branch, with its registered office at Via Cordusio, n.3, Milan 20123,  Italy, authorized by the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin) and jointly supervised by the BaFin, the German Central Bank (Deutsche Bundesbank) and the European Central Bank (ECB); J.P. Morgan SE – Milan Branch is also supervised by Bank  of Italy and the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (CONSOB); registered with Bank of Italy as a branch of J.P. Morgan SE under code 8076; Milan Chamber of Commerce Registered Number: REA MI 2536325. In the Netherlands, this material is distributed by  J.P. Morgan SE – Amsterdam Branch, with registered office at World Trade Centre, Tower B, Strawinskylaan 1135, 1077 XX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, authorized by the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin) and jointly supervised by the BaFin, the German Central Bank (Deutsche Bundesbank) and the European Central Bank (ECB); J.P. Morgan SE – Amsterdam Branch is also supervised by De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) and the Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) in the Netherlands. Registered with the Kamer van Koophandel as a branch of J.P. Morgan SE under registration number 72610220. In Denmark, this material is distributed by J.P. Morgan SE – Copenhagen Branch, filial af J.P. Morgan SE, Tyskland, with registered office at Kalvebod Brygge 39-41, 1560 København V, Denmark, authorized by the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin) and jointly supervised by the BaFin, the German Central Bank (Deutsche Bundesbank) and the European Central Bank (ECB); J.P. Morgan SE – Copenhagen Branch, filial af J.P. Morgan SE, Tyskland is also supervised by Finanstilsynet (Danish FSA) and is registered with Finanstilsynet as a branch of J.P. Morgan SE under code 29010. In Sweden, this material is distributed by J.P. Morgan SE – Stockholm Bankfilial, with registered office at Hamngatan 15, Stockholm, 11147, Sweden, authorized by the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin) and jointly supervised by the BaFin, the German Central Bank (Deutsche Bundesbank) and the European Central Bank (ECB); J.P. Morgan SE – Stockholm Bankfilial is also supervised by Finansinspektionen (Swedish FSA); registered with Finansinspektionen as a branch of J.P. Morgan SE. In Belgium, this material is distributed by J.P. Morgan SE – Brussels Branch with registered office at 35 Boulevard du Régent, 1000, Brussels, Belgium, authorized by the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin) and jointly supervised by the BaFin, the German Central Bank (Deutsche Bundesbank) and the European Central Bank (ECB);  J.P. Morgan SE Brussels Branch is also supervised by the National Bank of Belgium (NBB) and the Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA) in Belgium; registered with the NBB under registration number 0715.622.844. In Greece, this material is distributed by J.P. Morgan SE – Athens Branch, with its registered office at 3 Haritos Street, Athens, 10675, Greece, authorized by the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin) and jointly supervised by the BaFin, the German Central Bank (Deutsche Bundesbank) and the European Central Bank (ECB); J.P. Morgan SE – Athens Branch is also supervised by Bank of Greece; registered with Bank of Greece as a branch of J.P. Morgan SE under code 124; Athens Chamber of Commerce Registered Number 158683760001; VAT Number 99676577. In France, this material is distributed by J.P. Morgan SE – Paris Branch, with its registered office at 14, Place Vendome 75001 Paris, France, authorized by the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin) and jointly supervised by the BaFin, the German Central Bank (Deutsche Bundesbank) and the European Central Bank (ECB) under code 842 422 972; J.P. Morgan SE – Paris Branch is also supervised by the French banking authorities the Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel et de Résolution (ACPR) and the Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF). In Switzerland, this material is distributed by J.P. Morgan (Suisse) SA, with registered address at rue du Rhône, 35, 1204, Geneva, Switzerland, which is authorized and supervised by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) as a bank and a securities dealer in Switzerland.

This communication is an advertisement for the purposes of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MIFID II) and the Swiss Financial Services Act (FINSA). Investors should not subscribe for or purchase any financial instruments referred to in this advertisement except on the basis of information contained in any applicable legal documentation, which is or shall be made available in the relevant jurisdictions (as required).

In Hong Kong, this material is distributed by JPMCB, Hong Kong branch. JPMCB, Hong Kong branch is regulated by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, we will cease to use your personal data for our marketing purposes without charge if you so request. In Singapore, this material is distributed by JPMCB, Singapore branch. JPMCB, Singapore branch is regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. Dealing and advisory services and discretionary investment management services are provided to you by JPMCB, Hong Kong/Singapore branch (as notified to you). Banking and custody services are provided to you by JPMCB Singapore Branch. The contents of this document have not been reviewed by any regulatory authority in Hong Kong, Singapore or any other jurisdictions. You are advised to exercise caution in relation to this document. If you are in any doubt about any of the contents of this document, you should obtain independent professional advice. For materials that constitute product advertisement under the Securities and Futures Act and the Financial Advisers Act, this advertisement has not been reviewed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., a national banking association chartered under the laws of the United States, and as a body corporate, its shareholder’s liability is limited.

With respect to countries in Latin America, the distribution of this material may be restricted in certain jurisdictions. We may offer and/or sell to you securities or other financial instruments which may not be registered under, and are not the subject of a public offering under, the securities or other financial regulatory laws of your home country. Such securities or instruments are offered and/or sold to you on a private basis only. Any communication by us to you regarding such securities or instruments, including without limitation the delivery of a prospectus, term sheet or other offering document, is not intended by us as an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities or instruments in any jurisdiction in which such an offer or a solicitation is unlawful. Furthermore, such securities or instruments may be subject to certain regulatory and/or contractual restrictions on subsequent transfer by you, and you are solely responsible for ascertaining and complying with such restrictions. To the extent this content makes reference to a fund, the Fund may not be publicly offered in any Latin American country, without previous registration of such fund´s securities in compliance with the laws of the corresponding jurisdiction. 

References to “J.P. Morgan” are to JPM, its subsidiaries and affiliates worldwide. “J.P. Morgan Private Bank” is the brand name for the private banking business conducted by JPM. This material is intended for your personal use and should not be circulated to or used by any other person, or duplicated for non-personal use, without our permission. If you have any questions or no longer wish to receive these communications, please contact your J.P. Morgan team.

© 2024 JPMorgan Chase & Co. All rights reserved.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMCBNA) (ABN 43 074 112 011/AFS Licence No: 238367) is regulated by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. Material provided by JPMCBNA in Australia is to “wholesale clients” only. For the purposes of this paragraph the term “wholesale client” has the meaning given in section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Please inform us if you are not a Wholesale Client now or if you cease to be a Wholesale Client at any time in the future.

JPMS is a registered foreign company (overseas) (ARBN 109293610) incorporated in Delaware, U.S.A. Under Australian financial services licensing requirements, carrying on a financial services business in Australia requires a financial service provider, such as J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (JPMS), to hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL), unless an exemption applies. JPMS is exempt from the requirement to hold an AFSL under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) in respect of financial services it provides to you, and is regulated by the SEC, FINRA and CFTC under US laws, which differ from Australian laws. Material provided by JPMS in Australia is to “wholesale clients” only. The information provided in this material is not intended to be, and must not be, distributed or passed on, directly or indirectly, to any other class of persons in Australia. For the purposes of this paragraph the term “wholesale client” has the meaning given in section 761G of the Act. Please inform us immediately if you are not a Wholesale Client now or if you cease to be a Wholesale Client at any time in the future.

This material has not been prepared specifically for Australian investors. It:

  • may contain references to dollar amounts which are not Australian dollars;
  • may contain financial information which is not prepared in accordance with Australian law or practices;
  • may not address risks associated with investment in foreign currency denominated investments; and
  • does not address Australian tax issues.

© $$YEAR JPMorgan Chase & Co. All rights reserved.

WEITERE INFORMATIONEN über unsere Firma und unsere Anlageexperten erhalten Sie über FINRA Brokercheck

Um weitere Informationen über das Investmentgeschäft von J.P. Morgan, einschließlich unserer Konten, Produkte und Dienstleistungen, sowie unsere Beziehung zu Ihnen zu erhalten, lesen Sie bitte unser CRS-Formular von J.P. Morgan Securities LLC und den Leitfaden für Investmentdienstleistungen und Brokerage-Produkte.

 

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. und seine verbundenen Unternehmen (zusammen „JPMCB“) bieten Anlageprodukte an, die im Rahmen der Trust- und Treuhanddienste bankgeführte Anlage- und Depotkonten umfassen können. Sonstige Anlageprodukte und -dienstleistungen, wie z. B. Brokerage- und Beratungskonten, werden von J.P. Morgan Securities LLC („JPMS“), einem Mitglied von FINRA und SIPC, angeboten. Versicherungsprodukte werden über die Chase Insurance Agency, Inc. (CIA) angeboten, eine lizenzierte Versicherungsagentur, die als Chase Insurance Agency Services, Inc. in Florida tätig ist. JPMCB, JPMS und CIA sind verbundene Gesellschaften unter gemeinsamer Kontrolle von JPMorgan Chase & Co. Die Produkte sind nicht in allen Bundesstaaten erhältlich. Bitte lesen Sie den Haftungsausschluss im Zusammenhang mit diesen Seiten.

ANLAGEPRODUKTE SIND: • NICHT DURCH DIE FDIC VERSICHERT • KEINE EINLAGEN ODER ANDERWEITIGEN VERPFLICHTUNGEN ODER GARANTIEN DER JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. ODER DEREN VERBUNDENEN GESELLSCHAFTEN • UNTERLIEGEN ANLAGERISIKEN EINSCHLIESSLICH DES MÖGLICHEN VERLUSTES DES INVESTIERTEN GESAMTBETRAGS

Einlageprodukte, wie z. B. Girokonten, Spareinlagen und Bankkredite sowie verbundene Dienstleistungen werden von JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. angeboten. FDIC-Mitglied. Keine Kreditzusage. Alle Kreditverlängerungen unterliegen der Kreditgenehmigung.