Connect with us

Business

Jamie Dimon turned down Jeff Bezos and a top gig at Amazon to take on ‘troubled’ Bank One in a $60 million bet

Published

on



In 1998, Jamie Dimon was a rising star on Wall Street, widely expected to assume the CEO mantle at Citigroup after helping build the financial conglomerate alongside his mentor Sandy Weill. That path abruptly collapsed when Dimon was unceremoniously fired, as Dimon recalled in a recent podcast appearance.

Speaking to Acquired, the JPMorgan Chase CEO said the shock was not just professional but deeply personal; Dimon recalls fielding nervous questions from his children about the family’s future as about 50 colleagues gathered at his apartment for “a wake” that night. Dimon said he told his guests that he was doing alright, it was his “net worth, not his self worth” that had been shaken.

Dimon said he spent the next 18 months considering his next step, out of an office in the Seagram Building. He said he dabbled in teaching, considered starting his own merchant bank, and even contemplated retirement, being 42 years old at the time. But he also called various connections, keeping an open-mind. One of these led to a visit to Seattle to meet Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who was seeking a president for his fast-growing company, and they had a particularly consequential conversation.

The Amazon what-if and the road not taken

Dimon and Bezos hit it off, saying they’ve “been friends ever since.” Yet he also says it was just “a bridge too far,” not just to move to Seattle, but to leave finance for the tech world, and running Amazon full-time. Dimon said he would have been stepping into a radically different industry and life, joking that it would have been like a “When Harry Met Sally” scenario or an alternate universe: “I’ll never wear a suit again. I’m going to live in a houseboat.”

To be sure, Amazon at that time was also a much different proposition to the $2.4 trillion colossus it is today. The tech company’s share price was less than a dollar and it had just a $5.5 billion market cap at the end of 2000. After the Amazon visit, Dimon said he “got serious” and considered other positions.

Other offers included running other global investment banks, which Dimon declined to name, and even insurance giant AIG, as he fielded a call from Hank Greenberg. Another offer he declined was from Ken Langone, Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank, and Dimon said he had good conversations, but eventually confessed that he had never actually stepped foot in a Home Depot before.

But what stuck was a headhunter’s call about Bank One—a large but beleaguered Chicago bank. At the time, Bank One was valued around $20 billion, a far cry from the $200 billion scale of Citigroup. It had recently merged with other regional banks and was beset by infighting, brand confusion, and mounting losses. Dimon recalled that analyst Mike Mayo had a great line at the time about the bank’s problems: “Even Hercules couldn’t fix it.”

How Dimon became the captain of the ship

Undeterred by the daunting turnaround task, Dimon saw potential where others saw wreckage. He described the idea of another banking job as “my habitat”—and he described Bank One as a place where his operational style and relentless focus on risk management could make an impact. He uprooted his young family, moved to Chicago, and signaled ultimate commitment by investing half his net worth—$60 million—directly into Bank One’s stock the day he took the job. “I was going to go down with the ship or up with the ship,” he said, determined to demonstrate to shareholders and his new team that he was “alock, stock, and barrel.”

He also talked generally about why he made this particular career decision instead of a New York-based investment banking job. He was in charge at Bank One as the CEO, he said, whereas he expressed doubts about whether he could fully trust people in the investment banking world, after his bruising experience with his mentor Sandy Weill and Citigroup.

Within days, he confronted the scale of the challenge: management discord, disjointed IT systems, failing credit card operations, and a 21-member board split by tribal rivalries. Rather than seek short-term wins, Dimon insisted on honest reporting, transparent communication, and building a long-term strategy—traits that would later crystallize at JPMorgan Chase and Dimon’s belief in having a “fortress balance sheet.” He explained on the podcast that Bank One’s tolerance for risk was far too excessive and the bank wasn’t being honest with itself. By owning up to its own problems, it could set course for a stronger balance sheet that would be a fortress when the market turned.

Captain of the ship or the houseboat?

Dimon’s wager on Bank One—and the leadership approach he honed there—set the stage for his stewardship of JPMorgan Chase. He made his return to Wall Street in 2004 when Bank One merged with JPMorgan, and he emerged as one of the great stabilizers of the financial system during the 2008 financial crisis. As JPMorgan has gone from strength to strength, Dimon has matured into a senior voice in American society itself, weighing in on politics and central banking alike, and wielding substantial influence.

American finance might look profoundly different if Dimon had taken Bezos’ offer and chosen to join Amazon. Instead, his $60 million bet on a struggling bank catalyzed one of the most remarkable second acts in corporate American history, ultimately leading to one of the most successful and influential bankers of his generation. Instead, he could have been a tech executive living on the proverbial houseboat.

JPMorgan declined to comment further for this report.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Miss Universe co-owner gets bank accounts frozen as part of probe into drugs, fuel and arms trafficking

Published

on



Mexico’s anti-money laundering office has frozen the bank accounts of the Mexican co-owner of Miss Universe as part of an investigation into drugs, fuel and arms trafficking, an official said Friday.

The country’s Financial Intelligence Unit, which oversees the fight against money laundering, froze Mexican businessman Raúl Rocha Cantú’s bank accounts in Mexico, a federal official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the investigation.

The action against Rocha Cantú adds to mounting controversies for the Miss Universe organization. Last week, a court in Thailand issued an arrest warrant for the Thai co-owner of the Miss Universe Organization in connection with a fraud case and this year’s competition — won by Miss Mexico Fatima Bosch — faced allegations of rigging.

The Miss Universe organization did not immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press seeking comment about the allegations against Rocha Cantú.

Mexico’s federal prosecutors said last week that Rocha Cantú has been under investigation since November 2024 for alleged organized crime activity, including drug and arms trafficking, as well as fuel theft. Last month, a federal judge issued 13 arrest warrants for some of those involved in the case, including the Mexican businessman, whose company Legacy Holding Group USA owns 50% of the Miss Universe shares.

The organization’s other 50% belongs to JKN Global Group Public Co. Ltd., a company owned by Jakkaphong “Anne” Jakrajutatip.

A Thai court last week issued an arrest warrant for Jakrajutatip who was released on bail in 2023 on the fraud case. She failed to appear as required in a Bangkok court on Nov. 25. Since she did not notify the court about her absence, she was deemed to be a flight risk, according to a statement from the Bangkok South District Court.

The court rescheduled her hearing for Dec. 26.

Rocha Cantú was also a part owner of the Casino Royale in the northern Mexican city of Monterrey, when it was attacked in 2011 by a group of gunmen who entered it, doused gasoline and set it on fire, killing 52 people.

Baltazar Saucedo Estrada, who was charged with planning the attack, was sentenced in July to 135 years in prison.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Elon Musk’s X fined $140 million by EU for breaching digital regulations

Published

on



European Union regulators on Friday fined X, Elon Musk’s social media platform, 120 million euros ($140 million) for breaches of the bloc’s digital regulations, in a move that risks rekindling tensions with Washington over free speech.

The European Commission issued its decision following an investigation it opened two years ago into X under the 27-nation bloc’s Digital Services Act, also known as the DSA.

It’s the first time that the EU has issued a so-called non-compliance decision since rolling out the DSA. The sweeping rulebook requires platforms to take more responsibility for protecting European users and cleaning up harmful or illegal content and products on their sites, under threat of hefty fines.

The Commission, the bloc’s executive arm, said it was punishing X because of three different breaches of the DSA’s transparency requirements. The decision could rile President Donald Trump, whose administration has lashed out at digital regulations, complained that Brussels was targeting U.S. tech companies and vowed to retaliate.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted on his X account that the Commission’s fine was akin to an attack on the American people. Musk later agreed with Rubio’s sentiment.

“The European Commission’s $140 million fine isn’t just an attack on @X, it’s an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments,” Rubio wrote. “The days of censoring Americans online are over.”

Vice President JD Vance, posting on X ahead of the decision, accused the Commission of seeking to fine X “for not engaging in censorship.”

“The EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage,” he wrote.

Officials denied the rules were intended to muzzle Big Tech companies. The Commission is “not targeting anyone, not targeting any company, not targeting any jurisdictions based on their color or their country of origin,” spokesman Thomas Regnier told a regular briefing in Brussels. “Absolutely not. This is based on a process, democratic process.”

X did not respond immediately to an email request for comment.

EU regulators had already outlined their accusations in mid-2024 when they released preliminary findings of their investigation into X.

Regulators said X’s blue checkmarks broke the rules because on “deceptive design practices” and could expose users to scams and manipulation.

Before Musk acquired X, when it was previously known as Twitter, the checkmarks mirrored verification badges common on social media and were largely reserved for celebrities, politicians and other influential accounts, such as Beyonce, Pope Francis, writer Neil Gaiman and rapper Lil Nas X.

After he bought it in 2022, the site started issuing the badges to anyone who wanted to pay $8 per month.

That means X does not meaningfully verify who’s behind the account, “making it difficult for users to judge the authenticity of accounts and content they engage with,” the Commission said in its announcement.

X also fell short of the transparency requirements for its ad database, regulators said.

Platforms in the EU are required to provide a database of all the digital advertisements they have carried, with details such as who paid for them and the intended audience, to help researches detect scams, fake ads and coordinated influence campaigns. But X’s database, the Commission said, is undermined by design features and access barriers such as “excessive delays in processing.”

Regulators also said X also puts up “unnecessary barriers” for researchers trying to access public data, which stymies research into systemic risks that European users face.

“Deceiving users with blue checkmarks, obscuring information on ads and shutting out researchers have no place online in the EU. The DSA protects users,” Henna Virkkunen, the EU’s executive vice-president for tech sovereignty, security and democracy, said in a prepared statement.

The Commission also wrapped up a separate DSA case Friday involving TikTok’s ad database after the video-sharing platform promised to make changes to ensure full transparency.

___

AP Writer Lorne Cook in Brussels contributed to this report.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Nvidia CEO says U.S. data centers take 3 years, but China ‘can build a hospital in a weekend’

Published

on



Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said China has an AI infrastructure advantage over the U.S., namely in construction and energy.

While the U.S. retains an edge on AI chips, he warned China can build large projects at staggering speeds.

“If you want to build a data center here in the United States from breaking ground to standing up a AI supercomputer is probably about three years,” Huang told Center for Strategic and International Studies President John Hamre in late November. “They can build a hospital in a weekend.”

The speed at which China can build infrastructure is just one of his concerns. He also worries about the countries’ comparative energy capacity to support the AI boom.

China has “twice as much energy as we have as a nation, and our economy is larger than theirs. Makes no sense to me,” Huang said.

He added that China’s energy capacity continues to grow “straight up”, while the U.S.’s remains relatively flat.

Still, Huang maintained that Nvidia is “generations ahead” of China on AI chip technology to support the demand for the tech and semiconductor manufacturing process.

But he warned against complacency on this front, adding that “anybody who thinks China can’t manufacture is missing a big idea.”

Yet Huang is hopeful about Nvidia’s future, noting President Donald Trump’s push to reshore manufacturing jobs and spur AI investments.

‘Insatiable AI demand’

Early last month, Huang made headlines by predicting China would win the AI race—a message he amended soon thereafter, saying the country was “nanoseconds behind America” in the race in a statement shared to his company’s X account.

Nvidia is just one of the big tech companies pouring billions of dollars into a data center buildout in the U.S., which experts tell Fortune could amount to over $100 billion in the next year alone.

Raul Martynek, the CEO of DataBank, a company that contracts with tech giants to construct data centers, said the average cost of a data center is $10 million to $15 million per megawatt (MW), and a typical data centers on the smaller side requires 40 MW.

“In the U.S., we think there will be 5 to 7 gigawatts brought online in the coming year to support this seemingly insatiable AI demand,” Martynek said.

This shakes out to $50 billion on the low end, and $105 billion on the high end.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.