Raphael Stevens

TWO GUT instincts have distinguished the macroeconomic policies of Xi Jinping, China’s ruler since 2012. He has disdained consumer handouts, which he thinks breed laziness. And he has refrained from bold economic stimulus, the kind of fiscal and monetary “bazooka” that China’s previous leaders fired in November 2008 during the global financial crisis. Both of Mr Xi’s convictions have been tested by China’s economic woes over the past year. And this week, shortly before the 75th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China, he appears to have set his qualms aside, permitting China’s most attention-grabbing stimulus since 2008. Chinese stocks posted their best week in 16 years; Hong Kong’s surged at a pace unseen since 1998. Some analysts have even used the b-word. More

JPMorgan disclosed that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could punish the lender for its role in Zelle, the giant peer-to-peer digital payments network.
In response, JPMorgan issued a thinly veiled threat: “The firm is evaluating next steps, including litigation.”
The prospect of a bank suing its regulator would’ve been unheard of in an earlier era, according to policy experts, but a combination of factors has created an environment where banks and their regulators have never been farther apart.
Banks, airlines, pharmaceutical companies and energy firms have found ways to undermine the power of federal agencies, according to legal experts.

JPMorgan Chase CEO and Chairman Jamie Dimon gestures as he speaks during the U.S. Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee oversight hearing on Wall Street firms, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 6, 2023.
Evelyn Hockstein | Reuters

Buried in a roughly 200-page quarterly filing from JPMorgan Chase last month were eight words that underscore how contentious the bank’s relationship with the government has become.
The lender disclosed that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could punish JPMorgan for its role in Zelle, the giant peer-to-peer digital payments network. The bank is accused of failing to kick criminal accounts off its platform and failing to compensate some scam victims, according to people who declined to be identified speaking about an ongoing investigation.

In response, JPMorgan issued a thinly veiled threat: “The firm is evaluating next steps, including litigation.”
The prospect of a bank suing its regulator would’ve been unheard of in an earlier era, according to policy experts, mostly because corporations used to fear provoking their overseers. That was especially the case for the American banking industry, which needed hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts to survive after irresponsible lending and trading activities caused the 2008 financial crisis, those experts say.
But a combination of factors in the intervening years has created an environment where banks and their regulators have never been farther apart.
Trade groups say that in the aftermath of the financial crisis, banks became easy targets for populist attacks from Democrat-led regulatory agencies. Those on the side of regulators point out that banks and their lobbyists increasingly lean on courts in Republican-dominated districts to fend off reform and protect billions of dollars in fees at the expense of consumers.
“If you go back 15 or 20 years, the view was it’s not particularly smart to antagonize your regulator, that litigating all this stuff is just kicking the hornet’s nest,” said Tobin Marcus, head of U.S. policy at Wolfe Research.

“The disparity between how ambitious [President Joe] Biden’s regulators have been and how conservative the courts are, at least a subset of the courts, is historically wide,” Marcus said. “That’s created so many opportunities for successful industry litigation against regulatory proposals.”

Assault on fees

Those forces collided this year, which started out as one of the most consequential for bank regulation since the post-2008 reforms that curbed Wall Street risk-taking, introduced annual stress tests and created the industry’s lead antagonist, the CFPB.
In the final months of the Biden administration, efforts from a half-dozen government agencies were meant to slash fees on credit card late payments, debit transactions and overdrafts, among other proposals. The industry’s biggest threat was the Basel Endgame, a sweeping plan to force big banks to hold tens of billions of dollars more in capital for activities like trading and lending.
“The industry is facing an onslaught of regulatory and potential legislative change,” Marianne Lake, head of JPMorgan’s consumer bank, warned investors in May.

JPMorgan’s disclosure about the CFPB probe into Zelle comes after years of grilling by Democrat lawmakers over financial crimes on the platform. Zelle was launched in 2017 by a bank-owned firm called Early Warning Services in response to the threat from peer-to-peer networks including PayPal.
The vast majority of Zelle activity is uneventful; of the $806 billion that flowed across the network last year, only $166 million in transactions was disputed as fraud by customers of JPMorgan, Bank of America and Wells Fargo, the three biggest players on the platform.
But the three banks collectively reimbursed just 38% of those claims, according to a July Senate report that looked at disputed unauthorized transactions.
Banks are typically on the hook to reimburse fraudulent Zelle payments that the customer didn’t give permission for, but usually don’t refund losses if the customer is duped into authorizing the payment by a scammer, according to the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.
A JPMorgan payments executive told lawmakers in July that the bank actually reimburses 100% of unauthorized transactions; the discrepancy in the Senate report’s findings is because bank personnel often determine that customers have authorized the transactions.
Amid the scrutiny, the bank began warning Zelle users on the Chase app to “Stay safe from scams” and added disclosures that customers won’t likely be refunded for bogus transactions.
JPMorgan declined to comment for this article.

Dimon in front

The company, which has grown to become the largest and most profitable American bank in history under CEO Jamie Dimon, is at the fore of several other skirmishes with regulators.
Thanks to his reputation guiding JPMorgan through the 2008 crisis and last year’s regional banking upheaval, Dimon may be one of few CEOs with the standing to openly criticize regulators. That was highlighted this year when Dimon led a campaign, both public and behind closed doors, to weaken the Basel proposal.
In May, at JPMorgan’s investor day, Dimon’s deputies made the case that Basel and other regulations would end up harming consumers instead of protecting them.
The cumulative effect of pending regulation would boost the cost of mortgages by at least $500 a year and credit card rates by 2%; it would also force banks to charge two-thirds of consumers for checking accounts, according to JPMorgan.
The message: banks won’t just eat the extra costs from regulation, but instead pass them on to consumers.
While all of these battles are ongoing, the financial industry has racked up several victories so far.
Some contend the threat of litigation helped convince the Federal Reserve to offer a new Basel Endgame proposal this month that roughly cuts in half the extra capital that the largest institutions would be forced to hold, among other industry-friendly changes.
It’s not even clear if the watered-down version of the proposal, a long-in-the-making response to the 2008 crisis, will ever be implemented because it won’t be finalized until well after U.S. elections.
If Republican candidate Donald Trump wins, the rules might be further weakened or killed outright, and even under a Kamala Harris administration, the industry could fight the regulation in court.
That’s been banks’ approach to the CFPB credit card rule, which aimed to cap late fees at $8 per incident and was set to go into effect in May.
A last-ditch effort from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and bank trade groups successfully delayed its implementation when Judge Mark Pittman of the Northern District of Texas sided with the industry, granting a freeze of the rule.

‘Venue shopping’

A key playbook for banks has been to file cases in conservative jurisdictions where they are likely to prevail, according to Lori Yue, a Columbia Business School associate professor who has studied the interplay between corporations and the judicial system.
The Northern District of Texas feeds into the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is “well-known for its friendliness to industry lawsuits against regulators,” Yue said.
“Venue-shopping like this has become well-established corporate strategy,” Yue said. “The financial industry has been particularly active this year in suing regulators.”
Since 2017, nearly two-thirds of the lawsuits filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce challenging federal regulations have been in courts under the 5th Circuit, according to an analysis by Accountable US.
Industries dominated by a few large players — from banks to airlines, pharmaceutical companies and energy firms — tend to have well-funded trade organizations that are more likely to resist regulators, Yue added.
The polarized environment, where weakened federal agencies are undermined by conservative courts, ultimately preserves the advantages of the largest corporations, according to Brian Graham, co-founder of bank consulting firm Klaros.
“It’s really bad in the long run, because it locks in place whatever the regulations have been, while the reality is that the world is changing,” Graham said. “It’s what happens when you can’t adopt new regulations because you’re terrified that you’ll get sued.”
— With data visualizations by CNBC’s Gabriel Cortes.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

In an email to OpenAI’s investors, CFO Sarah Friar said the company still has a “talented leadership bench” following key departures this week.
Friar also says its current funding round, which sources say values OpenAI at $150 billion, was oversubscribed and set to close next week.
“Collectively, we remain laser-focused on bringing AI to everyone and building sustainable revenue models that fuel our operations and deliver value to our investors and employees,” Friar wrote.

OpenAI’s Sora AI tool allows users to create AI-generated videos from text-based inputs.
Costfoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images

OpenAI CFO Sarah Friar is looking to reassure its investors that the richly valued artificial intelligence startup is still in a strong position and is poised to close a big funding round soon, despite losing top talent this week.
In an email to OpenAI’s investors seen by CNBC, Friar addressed the departure of Chief Technology Officer Mira Murati, who announced her exit on Wednesday. Later that day, Sam Altman said two top research executives, Bob McGrew and Barret Zoph, were also leaving.

“I wanted to personally reach out following the news of Mira’s departure from OpenAI,” Friar wrote in the letter, which was viewed by CNBC. “While leadership changes are never easy, I want to ensure you have the full context.”
Friar added that, “We are incredibly proud of everything she’s helped build,” and said the San Francisco-based company still has a “talented leadership bench” to compete.
OpenAI, which is backed by Microsoft and recently partnered with Apple on its AI for iPhones, is in the midst of closing a $6.5 billion funding round, which should value the company at roughly $150 billion, according to sources familiar with the matter. Thrive Capital is leading the round, and plans to invest $1 billion, according to sources.
Friar said in the email that the funding round was oversubscribed and would close by next week. She said the team plans to host a series of calls with investors to introduce the group to key leaders from product and research teams.
“Collectively, we remain laser-focused on bringing AI to everyone and building sustainable revenue models that fuel our operations and deliver value to our investors and employees,” Friar wrote. The company is “excited for you to be with us as we enter our next chapter,” she wrote.

OpenAI declined to comment on the email.
Murati’s departure comes after 6½ years at the company. She briefly served as interim CEO last year after the board of directors abruptly fired Altman. When Altman was quickly reinstated, Murati returned to the role of CTO.

Sarah Friar has been named OpenAI CFO
Anjali Sundaram | CNBC

The company was already dealing with the loss of key executives. Co-founder John Schulman and safety chief Jan Leike left to join rival Anthropic. Co-founder Ilya Sutskever departed to start another AI company, while another founder, Greg Brockman, is on a leave of absence.
Friar said Mark Chen will step into the role of of senior vice president of research, and leaders like Kevin Weil, who joined from Meta, and Srinivas Narayanan are the “right people to keep pushing the boundaries of innovation.”
Friar was formerly CEO of Nextdoor, and before that CFO at Block, formerly Square.
Also on Thursday, at an all-hands meeting, Altman denied that there are plans for him to receive a “giant equity stake” in the company, calling reports of such a development “just not true,” according to a person who was in attendance.
Altman and Friar both said at the meeting, conducted by video, that investors have raised concerns about Altman not having equity in the company that he co-founded almost nine years ago, said the person, who asked not to be named because the gathering was only for employees.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

China’s latest policy signals have a bigger impact on sentiment than resolving deeper issues such as real estate, analysts said.
“The ‘shock and awe’ strategy could be meant to jumpstart the markets and boost confidence,” said Ting Lu, chief China economist at Nomura, but eventually it is still necessary to introduce well thought out policies to address many of the “deep-rooted problems.”
“China’s policy moves to lower interest rates have not helped improve confidence among consumers who are fearful of borrowing in the first place,” Paul Christopher, head of global investment strategy at Wells Fargo Investment Institute, said in an email.

A shareholder at a securities hall in Hangzhou, the capital of Zhejiang province in east China, on Sept. 24, 2024.
Cfoto | Future Publishing | Getty Images

BEIJING — China’s latest policy signals have a bigger impact on sentiment than resolving deeper issues such as real estate, analysts said.
The Shanghai Composite rallied Thursday to close at a three-month high after state media reported Chinese President Xi Jinping led a Politburo meeting on the economy that morning.

The unexpected high-level gathering called for halting the property market decline, and strengthening fiscal and monetary policy. It provided few specifics, while affirming central bank rate cuts announced earlier in the week.
Markets should value how Beijing is recognizing the severity of the economic situation, and how its piecemeal approach so far hasn’t worked, Ting Lu, chief China economist at Nomura, said in a report Friday.
“The ‘shock and awe’ strategy could be meant to jumpstart the markets and boost confidence,” Lu said, but eventually it is still necessary to introduce well thought out policies to address many of the “deep-rooted problems.”

Growth in the world’s second-largest economy has slowed, dragged down by the real estate slump. Retail sales have risen by barely more than 2% in recent months, and industrial profits have barely grown for the first eight months of the year. Exports are one of the few bright spots.
Nomura’s Lu said policymakers in particular need to stabilize property since it is in its fourth year of contraction. He estimated the impact of additional stimulus wouldn’t exceed 3% of China’s annual GDP.

“Markets should place more emphasis on the specifics of the stimulus,” Lu said. “If not designed well, a stimulus program in a haste, even if seemingly large, could have a slow and limited impact on growth.”
The People’s Bank of China this week cut major interest rates, and announced plans to lower rates for existing mortgage holders. The Ministry of Finance has yet to release major policies, despite reports of such plans.

Questions about scale

For some investment institutions, that’s still not enough to move the needle on their China outlook.
“China’s policy moves to lower interest rates have not helped improve confidence among consumers who are fearful of borrowing in the first place,” Paul Christopher, head of global investment strategy at Wells Fargo Investment Institute, said in an email.
“We would be selling emerging market equities at this point,” he said, “as we have little confidence in Beijing’s willingness to extend the large stimulus that is needed.”
Christopher added that Thursday’s “announcement of coming fiscal stimulus is welcome, but it remains to be seen if China’s government is willing to take the steps necessary to reverse the psychological damage to household and private business sentiment.”
The Chinese government has cracked down on real estate developers, after-school tutoring businesses and the gaming industry in recent years. Policymakers have since eased their stance, but business and consumer confidence has yet to recover.
China’s latest interest rate cuts follow the U.S. Federal Reserve’s shift last week to easier monetary policy. U.S rate cuts theoretically give China’s central bank more room to reduce already-low domestic rates.
A survey in September of more than 1,200 companies in China by the U.S.-based China Beige Book found that corporate borrowing declined, despite historic lows in the costs to do so.
“One can certainly hope for a wealth effect from stocks and property, but stocks will be temporary and the wealth decline from property is overwhelming compared to any relief,” Shehzad Qazi, chief operating officer at the China Beige Book, a U.S.-based research firm, said in a note Thursday.
He expects retail sales could pick up slightly in the next four to six months.
Qazi also expects the latest rally in Chinese stocks to continue into the last three months of the year. But cautioned that policies announced this week for driving more capital into the stock market “are not yet operational, and some may never be.”

Sentiment change

Those caveats haven’t discouraged investors from piling into beaten-down Chinese stocks. The CSI 300 stock index climbed Friday, on pace for its best week since 2008. It could rise another 10% in the near term, Laura Wang, chief China equity strategist at Morgan Stanley, told CNBC’s “Street Signs Asia.”
The sentiment shift has spread globally.
“I thought that what the Fed did last week would lead to China easing, and I didn’t know that they were going to bring out the big guns like they did,” U.S. billionaire hedge fund founder David Tepper told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Thursday. “And I think there’s a whole shift.”
Tepper said he bought more Chinese stocks this week.
An important takeaway from Thursday’s high-level government meeting was the support for capital markets, in contrast to a more negative perception in China on the financial industry in recent years, said Bruce Liu, CEO of Esoterica Capital, an asset manager.
“Hopefully this meeting is going to correct this misperception,” he said. “For China to keep growing in a healthy way, [they] really need a well-functioning capital market.”
“I don’t think they sent any different messages,” Liu said. “It’s just [that] they emphasize it with detailed action plans. That made a difference.” More