Economy & Markets

Cicadian Rhythms

Cicadian Rhythms: the fading prospects of a US disinflationary boom; Japan’s structural reform/M&A emergence; and Eye on the Market mailbag responses to questions on Tesla/Musk, GLPs, housing, China, Truth Social and Meta’s latest open source model

Watch the Podcast

Welcome, everybody to the April, late April 2024 for Eye on the Market podcast.

This one’s entitled Cicadian Rhythms as opposed to circadian rhythms, and refers to the cycle of blooms that are taking place this year, mostly in the Midwest. And the reason that I’m using this as a metaphor is there are two blooms that are taking place, two broods that are taking place at the same time. Brood 13 and brood 19.

They coemerge only once every 221 years. So that’s kind of a big deal. And they serve as a metaphor for something. The markets were pricing in earlier this year. That’s also really rare, which is a disinflationary boom. They, well, they don’t happen very often. They refer to periods when growth is rising and inflation is falling. There was one in the early 1980s.

There was another one in the early 1990s that lasted for a few months. It looked towards the end of last year and in January like one was happening here. But the, the prospects for a disinflationary boom are fading, and that’s had an impact on markets, and so I wanted to talk about the implications for investors and also talk about Tesla, China, Japan and some other topics.

And in this week’s piece. So the disinflationary boom that the markets were pricing in the growth side of that picture is still intact. And one of the things we show in the AI in the market is a table that shows the 18 leading indicators we track that, that projects certain things about the economy or profits, and how last fall a lot of these indicator, leading indicators were looking pretty weak, pretty dismal.

And how that picture has improved a lot. So not only did the contemporaneous growth numbers look good, leading indicators of future growth looked pretty good right now as well. The problem is with that sustained resilient growth picture, we've had a U-turn in inflation, so inflation has gone back up, as you can see here, as it relates to the core services component of the CPI, around half of last year’s decline has already been regained.

I don’t think it’s heading up to the peak where it was, but this is certainly a few months of data that’s moving in the opposite direction of what the Fed was hoping that we’ve seen the obvious consequences. The markets are now pricing in only one to two Fed cuts 10 years back up to 4.7, and PE multiples have gone down, particularly on growth stocks, and all of that makes sense.

And now, while not all the inflation news is bad, the producer price report was a lot more benign. The consumer price inflation data, most of the labor market and wage inflation data are still pointing towards lower inflation rather than higher inflation. So now the CPI stands out a little here amongst all the data as being the most problematic, and putting the Fed on its heels a little bit.

But I, and that’s the primary reason that this disinflationary boom that the markets were pricing in is it looks like the prospects for that are fading. Now, that said, whatever kind of correction we get here should be a pretty modest one. First, we knew that we were at risk of this kind of thing in the last time the market we talked about how multiples on tech stocks, whether you look at it on a market cap or an equal weighted basis, were back up at the highs of 2020, 2021.

So, yes, earnings have improved, but multiples this year had gone up even way past the improvement and forward earnings projections. And so the markets were kind of at risk of some negative news, which we’ve now gotten. But the magnitude of any correction here should be kind of modest. And I want to show you a couple of charts that we started showing last fall.

We talked about them again in the in the outlook when we were talking about our soft landing thesis. And everybody’s aware that that the inverted yield curve has a pretty good track record of predicting recessions. But I want to show you the other two things that coincide with inverted yield curves that are not happening this time, that are that are very different this time around.

One of them is the corporate sector. Financial balance, and that is basically a proxy for corporate cash flow net of capital spending, and in almost every circumstance in prior yield curve inversions, the corporate sector was hemorrhaging cash. So when rates went up and the corporate sector retrenched, you had a deep recession. Today, the corporate sector is, is in pretty good surplus.

The other thing that happened in the past is every time the Fed would raise rates, corporate interest expenses would go up a ton relative to profits, and that would also hurt the markets for investors this time around, probably because there’s so much fixed-rate debt that the corporate sector has taken on compared to floating rates have gone up 500 basis points, and we haven’t even seen any increase yet in interest costs relative to profits.

So there are a couple of things taking place this time that should mitigate the magnitude of any sell-off. And, you know, I would add to that a chart that we show here on net equity supply and, you know, the people were upset for years that equity supply was, was slowing down then. Sometimes, you know, be careful what you wish for.

We had an explosion of issuance, you know, SPACs included in 2020 and 2021. But net equity supply has now been negative three years running since then. And that tends to be good for investors. It means you don’t have a lot of excess supply as large institutional investors rebalance and redeploy cash. There’s a smaller subset of equities are investing in, right?

So this should be this is kind of a technical issue, but it should be helpful to the markets as well. And it indicates a lot more investor scrutiny on new issues. So the biggest challenge right now for the markets is that you’ve got a lot of people that would be very tempted to, to increase their cash positions. The ratio of cash yields to S&P dividend yields was at the highest level that it’s been at since the 1930s, with the exception of a temporary peak in the year 2000.

So in other words, the cash yields, you know, on T-bills are, you know, more than three times the S&P dividend yield. Now, those peaks tend not to last very long, but they can correct in a number of different ways. And it is an indication that on a risk-adjusted basis, you know, cash does have a place in investor portfolios right now as we, as we watch this all unfold in terms of what’s going to happen with the Fed, I still think just to wrap up this whole thing, even though the prospects of a disinflationary boom look like they’ve gone down, we don’t anticipate a large correction.

I still think this will be a year of single-digit returns on U.S. equities. The same thing that we thought last January. But I’m increasingly focused and do acknowledge the risks around the election and the election issue. Typically, divided governments tend to be better for investors than unified government, and we now have to look at two different possibilities: a Trump victory where Republicans take the House and the Senate, and a Biden victory where the Democrats take the House and the Senate.

In both of those circumstances, you might see an even wider budget deficit, but for different reasons. And then if you’ve got a Trump victory and unified government, you also have the risk of a 60% tariff on Chinese goods, up from 20 to 25% currently. I can’t imagine the Fed’s going to like the inflationary consequences of that. But you have a repeal of the corporate AMT repeal and the buyback tax.

The corporate sector will like that. But when combined with increased defense spending and a full extension of the personal tax cuts from 2017, you’re going to have a very big budget deficit. And that if you end up having militarized mass deportations, that’s going to impact labor force growth and wage inflation, and also in ways that are going to be challenging for the Fed.

So a unified Republican government poses risks and a unified Democratic government poses risks. I’m not going to spend too much time on it. We’ll talk about it later in the summer. But the Biden people kind of outlining the possibly idea of $2 trillion in tax increases on the corporate sector and high-net-worth individuals to support $2 trillion of safety net expansion.

There’s a lot of things that can go wrong there as well. And I would point to the energy bill, which was ironically named the Inflation Reduction Act. I don’t think there’s ever been a bill in the history of the United States that was more wrongly an Orwellian named than that one, because we are seeing surging electricity prices, surging prices for transformer and transmission equipment, and a massively bigger budget hit from this bill than was initially priced in by the CBO.

So anyway, those are the risks that we’ll have to grapple with later than the year, later in the year. The other circadian rhythm reference that I think is worth mentioning is, is Japan. And I don’t remember ever meeting anybody in my whole career that said to me, you know, hi, I work in Japan and my job is unlocking shareholder value in large cap companies, and but, but now I do meet people, you know, over the last 18 months to do that.

And you can see we have a chart here showing a fairly dramatic pick-up in corporate finance activity in Japan, whether it’s buyouts, carveouts, private debt recap realizations, spin-offs, secondary buyouts. I mean, this is a pretty big deal for Japan and a very big deal for investors. And the reason is the, the issue with Japan. Japan’s free cash flow yield of Japanese equities was never that much different than the U.S. The low valuations had to do with what was done with that cash flow and how shareholder value wasn’t being paid any intention to.

And if that’s changing, that’s a pretty big deal for investors. We showed this table a few a few months ago, and it’s kind of amazing. Every time I look at it, I still can’t believe it. Cash as a percentage of market cap and Japanese companies four, three times higher. In the U.S., the share of company is trading below book value 50%.

Half of all Japanese companies, compared to just 4% in the U.S. Equity allocations in pensions much lower than the U.S. and in households, 55% allocations to cash compared to 15 in the U.S. So there’s massive room for Japan as a society to re-equitize. And I think a lot of this, this, this cicadian emergence of corporate finance and M&A activity in Japan is, is a clue that that might be happening now.

Nothing’s outperformed U.S. equities in recent years, but we are seeing some outperformance of Japan versus Europe in emerging markets, which is an indication that things are happening that are worth paying attention to. So sorry, I’m having a Fresca. I don’t know if it’s if they’re safe to drink, but I do drink a lot of them. So I like to answer emails that I get and an Eye on the Market mailbag section.

And I want to conclude with, with a couple of topics. There were six. There were six emails that I answer in the mailbag this week, the ones on Tesla and Elon Musk. One is on housing, one is on weight loss drugs. One China truth, social valuations and then Meadow’s new open source language models. I’m only going to talk about two of them here, Tesla and China. For the other, for, you know, please refer to the actual AI in the market piece that has some good data in there.

So on. Tesla is a fascinating company for all obvious reasons. The stock’s down 41% this year. It’s one of the worst performers in the S&P and the Nasdaq. So people are obviously paying very close attention to what Tesla management is saying about what it’s going to do next. And Musk announced a pivot to Robotaxis. I find that kind of puzzling for a number of reasons.

First, San Francisco and Austin are the only two places that we know of the major cities where robotaxis are being widely tested. And there has been, you know, some issues in each one. And we see no evidence that Tesla is engaging with city planners there for robotaxi adoption. A lot, a basket of light car stocks, which are the companies involved in the technology associated with self-driving cars, that, that basket’s down 90% from 2021.

That’s not going anywhere. And, you know, Tesla’s level two features seem to work well and historically have reduced accident rates compared to cars that don’t have those features enabled at all. But level two features like lane following and braking, an acceleration support, that’s a long way from full self-driving level five capabilities. So I was kind of surprised to see Tesla focus on that and, you know, as I mentioned, Tesla’s, you know, had a very difficult year.

Here we have a chart showing different analyst price targets. The lowest one happens to be J.P. Morgan’s investment banking analyst. The highest one also, unsurprisingly, is Morgan Stanley, which has always been the kind of Tesla fan boy society. But even they’re warning in their research against assuming any kind of near-term commercialization of robotaxis. You remember a couple of years ago in 2022, Tesla talked about focusing on humanoid robots, a fascinating project, but one that doesn’t appear to have any near-term revenue benefits.

And this year they’re dealing with the cybertruck issues, and the last thing I read was that Inside EVs described it as a sixty-eight hundred pound missile because of the issue associated with the jam accelerator pedals. So the big issue for Tesla is obviously the model two. That’s the, the car that they’re developing. It’s supposed to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $25,000.

What we’re hearing is that Tesla has invested an enormous amount of money in giga casting equipment that can cast large parts of the car’s body in a single piece, reducing the number of metal pieces from 170 to two, and then requiring something like 600 fewer wells. So that’s fascinating. I totally buy into the notion that there could be some enormous production, mass production benefits from that, but it now looks like that’s a 2026 or maybe even a 2027 story in terms of when they’re going to be able to ramp that up to more than 500,000 units a year.

So back to, you know, what’s ailing Tesla right now. One thing is that there’s some great news on the truck they’re developing, but that doesn’t seem to be closer to commercialization either. The National Association for Commercial Freight Efficiency held this demo project last year. And I think this is fascinating. A Tesla truck went a thousand miles in a single day delivering on an actual Pepsi route in California, and only stopped three times for manageable, less than an hour periods each time to recharge.

Now we have a chart here that shows the miles cumulative miles traveled over that day. And you know, the percentage battery charge, and they’re using a 750 kilowatt charger. There’s been tremendous advances in charging capabilities on these EV trucks. And I think almost certainly this is a category killer for hydrogen trucking, which people used to like for the fast charging times.

But now that this technology is improving, you know, the roundtrip efficiency on fuel cells is just so abysmally awful. This, this certainly means that the future of the long-haul decarbonized trucking is going to be electric. Although I did see something recently that I thought was interesting, not sure exactly what to make of it yet, but there was a journal article that talked about some of the challenges that Tesla is facing and, and how Musk might be alienating some of the Tesla buyers.

And what they did was they cited a study from last fall showing the Democrats buying, the proportion of Democrats buying Tesla vehicles fell by more than 60%. And that happened to coincide with a barrage of Musk tweets last year on, you know, religious immigration, climate, COVID and a bunch of other stuff. But Tesla’s reliance on Democratic buyers is pretty well documented.

It’s a paper from Lucas Davis at UC Berkeley showing that, you know, almost more than half the Teslas purchased over the last decade went to a handful of very Democratic counties across the country. So it’s pretty clear that Tesla is heavily reliant on Democratic buyers. And, and so that’s why it’s kind of amazing to see Musk doubling down last month, saying there, quote unquote, there’s either a red or a red wave this November in the election or America’s doomed.

It’s a, it’s an interesting political experiment to see the CEO of a company that is so reliant on a particular demographic of people publicly project positions and policies that are presumably antithetical to their buyers. And if anything, I guess I’m surprised that there hasn’t been some kind of buyer backlash against Tesla before. Some of Musk’s other recent tweets have been supportive of Pizzagate, or what he’s tweeted about, you know, Paul Pelosi, Mackenzie Bezos, Soros, Foushee, a British cave diver that disagreed with him on the feasibility of using a submarine to rescue some trapped divers.

We walked through them in the Eye on the Market. And, you know, you can make your own judgments, but I think it’s pretty clear that a lot of those tweets would, would rub some Democratic buyers the wrong way. And that’s taking place against the backdrop of, of, of what’s happened to Twitter. And Foreign Policy magazine published a long piece last year that described Twitter as a sewer of disinformation.

And in the fall, the EU announced formally that it is, it is investigating Twitter for breaching rules regarding illegal content and disinformation. They did their own study of all the social media platforms and found the highest misinformation and disinformation rate on Twitter. Of all the platforms that they looked at. So this, this issue about Tesla fires and Musk is something that’s interesting to follow here.

Tesla still has massive market share, but over time there are going to be more competitors, more low-cost competitors. And this is obviously something that we’re going to continue to look at as it relates to China. Just to wrap up here, you know, nobody loves a good deep value story more than I do, right? Almost everything for investors has a price.

And at some point, almost anything can get cheap enough to where you would hold your nose and take some exposure to it. I just don’t happen to think we’re there yet on China. So to answer a couple of questions on China, there are signs of life, although it depends what indicators you look at. We have a China activity monitor in the, in the market this week.

One of them is a source that Bloomberg puts together that’s hooking up a little bit. The one that we construct happens to be rolling over the latest data that we’re seeing. Even though growth was 5%, that’s manipulated. Capacity utilization numbers are going down. China is still in deflation. So I don’t see a lot of evidence of a real turnaround or even kind of leading indicator.

Green shoots in China. And then as it relates to the more important question for investors, in February, we said, okay, China’s trading at a ten PE. That sounds pretty cheap. A lot of things are trading at a 10 PE, right? There were, there’s over 40 markets around the world or sectors trading at a 10 or less. And, you know, since February, MSCI China is up 4%.

Most, most of the other low PE sectors that we looked at or countries have done better. Argentina, European and then U.S. oil and gas. S&P airlines.

Spain. Italy. Chile. European. Financials. S&P banks. All of these markets and sectors. Or things that have done better than China. China is only up 4% or so since then. So again, there are places around the world to bottom fish that I think better have better fundamentals than China. And I, I don’t see the policies or the contemporaneous data that suggest that China should be at the top of a deep value list.

Obviously, that’s something we’ll continue to track in the months ahead. So thank you very much for listening. Take a look at the China market cell for all the details, and I’ll talk to you sometime in May. Thank you.

(DESCRIPTION)

Logo, J.P. Morgan, Eye on the Market.

 

(SPEECH)

Welcome, everybody, to the April-- late April-- 2024 Eye on the Market podcast. This one's entitled "Cicadian Rhythms," as opposed to circadian rhythms, and refers to the cicada blooms that are taking place this year, mostly in the Midwest. And the reason that I'm using this as a metaphor is there are two blooms that are taking place-- two broods that are taking place at the same time, brood 13 and brood 19. They co-emerge only once every 221 years. So that's kind of a big deal.

 

(DESCRIPTION)

Cicadas fly.

 

(SPEECH)

And they serve as a metaphor for something the markets were pricing in earlier this year that's also really rare, which is a disinflationary boom. Well, they don't happen very often. They refer to periods when growth is rising and inflation is falling. There was one in the early 1980s. There was another one in the early 1990s that lasted for a few months.

It looked towards the end of last year and in January like one was happening here. But the prospects for a disinflationary boom are fading. And that's had an impact on markets. And so I wanted to talk about the implications for investors and also talk about Tesla, China, Japan, and some other topics in this week's piece.

So the disinflationary boom that the markets were pricing in, the growth side of that picture is still intact. And one of the things we show in the Eye on the Market is a table that shows the 18 leading indicators we track that project certain things about the economy or profits and how, last fall, a lot of these leading indicators were looking pretty weak, pretty dismal, and how that picture has improved a lot.

So not only did the contemporaneous growth numbers look good, leading indicators of future growth look pretty good right now, as well.

 

(DESCRIPTION)

Line graph.

 

(SPEECH)

The problem is, with that sustained resilient growth picture, we've had a U-turn in inflation. So inflation has gone back up, as you could see here.

As it relates to the core services component of the CPI, around half of last year's decline has already been regained. I don't think it's heading up to the peak where it was. But this is certainly a few months of data that's moving in the opposite direction of what the Fed was hoping.

And then we've seen the obvious consequences. The markets are now pricing in only one to two Fed cuts, 10 years back up at 4.7. And P multiples have gone down, particularly on growth stocks. And all of that makes sense.

And now, while not all the inflation news is bad, the producer price report was a lot more benign than the consumer price inflation data. Most of the labor market and wage inflation data are still pointing towards lower inflation rather than higher inflation.

So the CPI stands out a little here amongst all the data as being the most problematic and putting the Fed on its heels a little bit. And that's the primary reason that this disinflationary boom that the markets were pricing in is-- it looks like the prospects for that are fading.

Now, that said, whatever kind of correction we get here should be a pretty modest one. First, we knew that we were at risk of this kind of thing. In the last Eye on the Market, we talked about how multiples on tech stocks, whether you look at it on a market cap or an equal weighted basis, were back up at the highs of 2020, 2021.

So yes, earnings have improved. But multiples this year had gone up even way past the improvement in forward-earnings projections. So the markets were kind of at risk of some negative news, which we've now gotten. But the magnitude of any correction here should be kind of modest.

And I want to show you a couple of charts that we started showing last fall. We talked about them again in the outlook, when we were talking about our soft-landing thesis. And everybody is aware that the inverted yield curve has a pretty good track record predicting recessions. But I want to show you the other two things that coincide with inverted yield curves that are not happening this time, that are very different this time around.

One of them is the corporate sector financial balance. And that is basically a proxy for corporate cash flow net of capital spending. And in almost every circumstance in prior yield curve inversions, the corporate sector was hemorrhaging cash. So when rates went up and the corporate sector retrenched, you had a deep recession. Today, the corporate sector is in pretty good surplus.

The other thing that happened in the past is every time the Fed would raise rates, corporate interest expenses would go up a ton relative to profits. And that would also hurt the markets for investors. This time around, probably because there's so much fixed-rate debt that the corporate sector is taking on compared to floating, rates have gone up 500 basis points. And we haven't even seen any increase yet in interest costs relative to profits.

So there are a couple things taking place this time that should mitigate the magnitude of any sell-off. And I would add to that a chart that we showed here on net equity supply. And the people were upset for years that equity supply was slowing down.

 

(DESCRIPTION)

Bar graph.

 

(SPEECH)

Then, sometimes, be careful what you wish for. We had an explosion of issuance, SPACs included, in 2020 and 2021.

But net equity supply has now been negative three years running since then. And that tends to be good for investors. It means you don't have a lot of excess supply. As large institutional investors rebalance and redeploy cash, there's a smaller subset of equities they're investing in.

 

(DESCRIPTION)

The graph trends down to the right after a peak.

 

(SPEECH)

So this is kind of a technical issue, but it should be helpful to the markets, as well. And it indicates a lot more investor scrutiny on new issues. So the biggest challenge right now for the markets is that you've got a lot of people that would be very tempted to increase their cash positions.

The ratio of cash yields to S&P dividend yields is at the highest level that it's been at since the 1930, with the exception of a temporary peak in the year 2000. So in other words, cash yields on T-bills are more than three times the S&P dividend yield.

Now, those peaks tend not to last very long. But they can correct in a number of different ways. And it is an indication that, on a risk-adjusted basis, cash does have a place in investor portfolios right now as we watch this all unfold in terms of what's going to happen with the Fed.

 

(DESCRIPTION)

Election.

 

(SPEECH)

I still think, just to wrap up this whole thing, even though the prospect of a disinflationary boom looked like it had gone down, we don't anticipate a large correction. I still think this will be a year of single-digit returns on US equities, the same thing that we thought last January. But I'm increasingly focused and do acknowledge the risks around the election.

And the election issue-- typically, divided governments tend to be better for investors than unified government. And we now have to look at two different possibilities-- a Trump victory, where Republicans take the House and the Senate, and a Biden victory, where the Democrats take the House and the Senate.

In both of those circumstances, you might see an even wider budget deficit but for different reasons. And then if you've got a Trump victory and unified government, you also have the risk of a 60% tariff on Chinese goods, up from 20% to 25% currently. I can't imagine the Fed's going to like the inflationary consequences of that.

You have a repeal of the corporate AMT, a repeal of the buyback tax. The corporate sector will like that. But when combined with increased defense spending and a full extension of the personal tax cuts from 2017, you're going to have a very big budget deficit. And then if you end up having militarized mass deportations, that's going to impact labor force growth and wage inflation, and also in ways that are going to be challenging for the Fed.

So a unified Republican government poses risks. And a unified Democratic government poses risks. I'm not going to spend too much time on it. We'll talk about it later in the summer. But the Biden people outlining the possibility of $2 trillion in tax increases on the corporate sector and high net worth individuals to support $2 trillion of a safety net expansion, there's a lot of things that can go wrong there, as well.

And I would point to the energy bill, which was ironically named the Inflation Reduction Act. I don't think there's ever been a bill in the history of the United States that was more wrongly and Orwellianly named than that one, because we are seeing surging electricity prices, surging prices for transformer and transmission equipment, and a massively bigger budget hit from this bill than was initially priced in by the CBO. So anyway, those are the risks that we'll have to grapple with later in the year.

 

(DESCRIPTION)

A bar graph trends up.

 

(SPEECH)

The other cicadian rhythm reference that I think is worth mentioning is Japan. And I don't remember ever meeting anybody in my whole career that said to me, oh, hi, I work in Japan, and my job is unlocking shareholder value in large-cap companies.

But now, I do meet people over the last 18 months that do that. And you can see we have a chart here showing a fairly dramatic pickup in corporate finance activity in Japan, whether it's buyouts, carve-outs, private debt, recapitalizations, spin-offs, secondary buyouts.

This is a pretty big deal for Japan and a very big deal for investors. And the reason is the issue with Japan-- Japan's free cash flow yield of Japanese equities was never that much different than the US. The low valuations had to do with what was done with that cash flow and how shareholder value wasn't being paid any attention to. And if that's changing, that's a pretty big deal for investors.

We showed this table a few months ago. And it's kind of amazing. Every time I look at it, I still can't believe it. Cash as a percentage of market cap in Japanese companies-- three times higher than the US. The share of companies trading below book value, 50%-- half of all Japanese companies-- compared to just 4% in the US.

Equity allocations in pensions much lower than the US. And in households, 55% allocations to cash compared to 15 in the US. So there's massive room for Japan as a society to re-equitize. And I think a lot of this emergence, this cicadian emergence, of corporate finance and M&A activity in Japan is a clue that that might be happening.

Now, nothing's outperformed US equities in recent years. But we are seeing some outperformance of Japan versus Europe and emerging markets, which is an indication that things are happening that are worth paying attention to.

 

(DESCRIPTION)

Slide, Mailbag. A bullet point list.

 

(SPEECH)

I'm sorry, I'm having a Fresca. I don't know if they're safe to drink. But I do drink a lot of them. So I like to answer emails that I get in an Eye on the Market mailbag section. And I'm going to conclude with a couple of topics.

There were six emails that I answered in the mailbag this week. One's on Tesla and Elon Musk. One is on housing. One is on weight-loss drugs, one's China, Truth Social valuations, and then Meta's new open-source language models. I'm only going to talk about two of them here-- Tesla and China. For the other four, please refer to the actual Eye on the Market piece that has some good data in there.

 

(DESCRIPTION)

Line graph.

 

(SPEECH)

So on Tesla, it's a fascinating company for all obvious reasons. The stock's down 41% this year. It's one of the worst performers in the S&P and the NASDAQ. So people are obviously paying very close attention to what Tesla management is saying about what it's going to do next.

And Musk announced a pivot to robotaxis. I find that kind of puzzling for a number of reasons. First, San Francisco and Austin are the only two places that we know of, major cities, where robotaxis are being widely tested. And there's been some issues in each one. And we see no evidence that Tesla is engaging with city planners there for robotaxi adoption.

A basket of LiDAR stocks, which are the companies involved in the technology associated with self-driving cars, that basket's down 90% from 2021. It's not going anywhere. And Tesla's level 2 features seem to work well and historically have reduced accident rates compared to cars that don't have those features enabled at all.

But level 2 features like lane following and brake and acceleration support, that's a long way from full self-driving level 5 capabilities. So I was kind of surprised to see Tesla focus on that. And as I mentioned, Tesla's had a very difficult year.

Here, we have a chart showing different analyst price targets. The lowest one happens to be JP Morgan's investment banking analyst. The highest one, unsurprisingly, is Morgan Stanley, which has always been the Tesla fanboy society. But even they're warning in their research against assuming any kind of near-term commercialization of robotaxis.

Remember, a couple of years ago, in 2022, Tesla talked about focusing on humanoid robots-- a fascinating project but one that doesn't appear to have any near-term revenue benefits. And this year, they're dealing with the cybertruck issues. And the last thing I read was that InsideEVs described it as a 6,800-pound land missile because of the issue associated with the jammed accelerator pedals.

So the big issue for Tesla is obviously the model 2. That's the car that they're developing. It's supposed to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $25,000. What we're hearing is that Tesla's invested an enormous amount of money in giga-casting equipment that can cast large parts of the car's body in a single piece, reducing the number of metal pieces from 170 to 2 and then requiring something like 1,600 fewer welds. So that's fascinating.

I totally buy into the notion that there could be some enormous mass production benefits from that. But it now looks like that's a 2026 or maybe even a 2027 story in terms of when they're going to be able to ramp that up to more than 500,000 units a year.

 

(DESCRIPTION)

Bar graph shows most estimates higher than closing price.

 

(SPEECH)

So back to what's ailing Tesla right now. One thing is that there's some great news on the truck they're developing, but that doesn't seem to be closer to commercialization either. The National Association for Commercial Freight Efficiency held this demo project last year. And I think this is fascinating.

A Tesla truck went a thousand miles in a single day delivering on an actual Pepsi route in California and only stopped three times for manageable less-than-an-hour periods each time to recharge. We have a chart here that shows cumulative miles traveled over that day and the percentage battery charge. And they're using a 750-kilowatt charger.

There's been tremendous advances in charging capabilities on these EV trucks. And I think almost certainly this is a category killer for hydrogen trucking, which people used to like for the fast charging times. But now that this technology is improving, the round-trip efficiency on fuel cells is just so abysmally awful. This certainly means that the future of EV-- of long-haul decarbonized trucking is going to be electric.

 

(DESCRIPTION)

Musk and Tesla buyers.

 

(SPEECH)

Although, I did see something recently that I thought was interesting. Not sure exactly what to make of it yet. But there was a journal article that talked about some of the challenges that Tesla's facing and how Musk might be alienating some of the Tesla buyers.

And what they did was they cited a study from last fall, showing that the proportion of Democrats buying Tesla vehicles fell by more than 60%. And that happened to coincide with a barrage of Musk tweets last year on religion, immigration, climate, COVID, and a bunch of other stuff.

Tesla's reliance on Democratic buyers is pretty well documented. There's a paper from Lucas Davis at UC Berkeley showing that more than half the Teslas purchased over the last decade went to a handful of very Democratic counties across the country. So it's pretty clear that Tesla's heavily reliant on Democratic buyers.

And so that's why it's kind of amazing to see Musk doubling down last month, saying there's-- quote, unquote, "there's either a red wave this November in the election, or America is doomed." It's an interesting political experiment to see the CEO of a company that is so reliant on a particular demographic of people publicly project positions and policies that are presumably antithetical to their buyers.

And if anything, I guess I'm surprised that there hasn't been some kind of buyer backlash against Tesla before. Some of Musk's other recent tweets have been supportive of Pizzagate, what he's tweeted about Paul Pelosi, and MacKenzie Bezos, Soros, Fauci, a British cave diver that disagreed with him on the feasibility of using a submarine to rescue trapped divers. We walk through them in the Eye on the Market. And you can make your own judgments.

But I think it's pretty clear that a lot of those tweets would rub some Democratic buyers the wrong way. And that's taking place against the backdrop of what's happened to Twitter. And Foreign Policy Magazine published a long piece last year that described Twitter as a sewer of disinformation.

And in the fall, the EU announced formally that it is investigating Twitter for breaching rules regarding illegal content and disinformation. They did their own study of all the social media platforms and found the highest misinformation and disinformation rate on Twitter of all the platforms that they looked at.

So this issue about Tesla buyers and Musk is something that's interesting to follow here. Tesla still has massive market share. But over time, there are going to be more competitors, more low-cost competitors. And this is obviously something that we're going to continue to look at.

 

(DESCRIPTION)

Line graph.

 

(SPEECH)

As it relates to China, just to wrap up here, nobody loves a good deep-value story more than I do, right? Almost everything for investors has a price. And at some point, almost anything can get cheap enough to where you would hold your nose and take some exposure to it.

I just don't happen to think we're there yet on China. So to answer a couple of questions on China, there are signs of life, although it depends what indicators you look at. We have a China activity monitor in the Eye on the Market this week. One of them is a source that Bloomberg puts together that's hooking up a little bit. The one that we construct happens to be rolling over.

The latest data that we're seeing, even though growth was 5%, that's manipulated. Capacity utilization numbers are going down. China is still in deflation. So I don't see a lot of evidence of a real turnaround or even leading-indicator green shoots in China.

And then as it relates to the more important question for investors, in February we said, OK, China's trading at a 10 PE. That sounds pretty cheap. A lot of things are trading at a 10 PE. There's over 40 markets around the world, or sectors, trading at a 10 PE or less. And since February, MSCI China is up 4%.

Most of the other low PE sectors that we looked at, or countries, have done better-- Argentina, European and US oil and gas, S&P airlines, Spain, Italy, Chile, European financials, S&P banks. All of these markets and sectors are things that have done better than China. China's only up 4% or so since then.

So again, there are places around the world to bottomfish that I think have better fundamentals than China. And I don't see the policies or the contemporaneous data that suggest that China should be at the top of the deep-value list. Obviously, that's something we'll continue to track in the months ahead. So thank you very much for listening. Take a look at the Eye on the Market itself for all the details. And I'll talk to you sometime in May. Thank you.

 

(DESCRIPTION)

April 2024 Cicadian Rhythms, J.P. Morgan.

Click here for important information

Contact us to discuss how we can help you experience the full possibility of your wealth.

Please tell us about yourself, and our team will contact you. 

*Required Fields

Contact us to discuss how we can help you experience the full possibility of your wealth.

Please tell us about yourself, and our team will contact you. 

Enter your First Name

> or < are not allowed

Only 40 characters allowed

Enter your Last Name

> or < are not allowed

Only 40 characters allowed

Select your country of residence

Enter valid street address

> or < are not allowed

Only 150 characters allowed

Enter your city

> or < are not allowed

Only 35 characters allowed

Select your state

> or < are not allowed

Enter your ZIP code

Please enter a valid zipcode

> or < are not allowed

Only 10 characters allowed

Enter your postal code

Please enter a valid zipcode

> or < are not allowed

Only 10 characters allowed

Enter your country code

Enter your country code

> or < are not allowed

Enter your phone number

Phone number must consist of 10 numbers

Please enter a valid phone number

> or < are not allowed

Only 15 characters allowed

Enter your phone number

Please enter a valid phone number

> or < are not allowed

Only 15 characters allowed

Tell Us More About You

0/1000

Only 1000 characters allowed

> or < are not allowed

Checkbox is not selected

Your Recent History

Important Information

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 Vendôme 75001 Paris, France, authorized by the Bundesanstaltfür 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 authorised 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 which 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.

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.

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.

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

LEARN MORE About Our Firm and Investment Professionals Through FINRA Brokercheck

 

To learn more about J.P. Morgan’s investment business, including our accounts, products and services, as well as our relationship with you, please review our J.P. Morgan Securities LLC Form CRS and Guide to Investment Services and Brokerage Products

 

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its affiliates (collectively "JPMCB") offer investment products, which may include bank-managed 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 JPMorgan Chase & Co. Products not available in all states.

 

Please read the Legal Disclaimer for key important J.P. Morgan Private Bank information in conjunction with these pages.

INVESTMENT AND INSURANCE PRODUCTS ARE: • NOT FDIC INSURED • NOT INSURED BY ANY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY • NOT A DEPOSIT OR OTHER OBLIGATION OF, OR GUARANTEED BY, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. OR ANY OF ITS AFFILIATES • SUBJECT TO INVESTMENT RISKS, INCLUDING POSSIBLE LOSS OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT INVESTED

Bank deposit products, such as checking, savings and bank lending and related services are offered by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Member FDIC.

Not a commitment to lend. All extensions of credit are subject to credit approval.

Equal Housing Lender Icon