JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) is currently the largest bank in the USA by total assets. Its CEO, Jamie Dimon, is known for writing lengthy annual shareholder letters in which he pontificates about the state of the world and the banking industry.
His latest letter was released earlier this week. I read it in earnest, taking extensive notes that I thought will be useful to share. So here they are! (The italicised passages between the two horizontal lines below are direct quotes from Dimon’s letter.)
1. Asset prices look fully valued
And we also continue to buy back enough stock so as not to increase total excess capital, though we have a number of options on how to deploy our capital and are clear-eyed that many asset prices, including bank stocks, are fully valued.
2. Current banking regulations have had some good effects, but have also made the banking system weaker by creating risks, including the creation of conditions that led to the Silicon Valley Bank crisis in 2023, and the risk of moral hazard in bank runs
A properly regulated banking system helps reduce risk to the financial system, protect customers, and maximize productive use of capital and lending. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and some of the rules that followed that legislation accomplished some good things. At the same time, they also created a fragmented, slow-moving system with expensive, overlapping and excessive rules and regulations — some of which made the financial system weaker and reduced productive lending…
…Here are some of the negative consequences partially due to poor bank regulations.
- Because capital requirements on banks are much higher than the market gives to private entities, insurance companies or even foreign banks, huge arbitrage is created. This is often a sign of potential risk.
- Regulators wrongly incorporated an accounting concept called “held to maturity” (HTM) into the capital rules, thereby giving Treasury and mortgage securities better capital treatment because the holder has promised not to sell them. This had many negative consequences — it allowed banks to not recognize mark-to-market losses on those securities in their regulatory capital, and in some cases, it falsely increased returns on those securities (because the amount of regulatory capital needed to be held against them was significantly smaller). This inadvertently encouraged banks to take on more interest rate risk, which was the ultimate trigger for the failure of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and First Republic Bank (FRB).
- The Fed’s Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) stress test, as currently constructed, produces results that are far worse, in our strongly held opinion, than what our actual results would be under those severely adverse conditions. The process is flawed, including reliance on inaccurate models and assumptions and the fact that it tests only one type of crisis, so other scenarios are overlooked (e.g., rapid rises in interest rates, as in the case of SVB and FRB). Testing should use accurate numbers and assumptions — then the results are what they are — rather than being driven by predetermined “what-ifs.” More transparency and sound methodology would lead to continuous improvement, not gaming the system. Essentially, we do not use CCAR to manage risk — we look at far more scenarios and need to be prepared for all of them. We also look at these risks every week, not just once a year…
…One of the huge risks for a bank has always been a “run on the bank,” which occurs when people think that their uninsured deposits are at risk. The FDIC only covers insured deposits, and the run risk is driven by uninsured deposits, particularly nonoperating uninsured deposits. In recent bank failures, regulators have had to invoke the systemic risk exception (SRE) to protect uninsured deposits at the point of failure. That is a problem — no one should want this as an emergency mechanism. It creates moral hazard, and the process to invoke the SRE is chaotic and involves multiple agencies, including approval by the Treasury Secretary in consultation with the President. Bank runs can happen quickly, and relying on that type of action to avoid contagion is simply not a good idea.
3. Real banking risks are always about credit, liquidity, interest rate, and operations
The real risks almost always end up being credit, liquidity, interest rate or operational risk.
4. Ideas to reduce actual risks in the banking industry through regulations include placing limits on the amount of HTM (held-to-maturity) assets banks can hold, requiring banks to have more liquidity to pay off uninsured deposits, and putting limits on the percentage loss on uninsured depots in the event of a bank failure
Here are some ideas that I believe would not only significantly reduce the chances that the SRE would need to be invoked but would also make the system safer and avoid moral hazard.
- I would limit the amount of HTM securities in a way that links to the total long-term debt that the bank must have available to absorb losses upon its failure. And while this is a judgment call, banks need to realize that when available-for-sale and HTM security losses start to exceed 50% of tangible equity, investors will get worried…
- …Prior to failure — between the Fed window and the rather quick sale or financing of securities or other assets — banks should be in a position where they have enough liquidity to pay off more than 50% of uninsured, nonoperating deposits. Regulators floated a similar idea in 2024, and I agree with them. This plan, plus the fact that equity and long-term debt will absorb losses before uninsured deposits are at risk, would give customers far greater peace of mind.
- We should also consider simply setting, upfront, a statutory cap on the percentage loss on uninsured deposits in the event of failure — say, at 5%. This would reduce moral hazard and create an additional buffer for the FDIC to achieve a smooth resolution without using the SRE. With this plan, a small portion of the uninsured deposits would be immediately available to cover losses and communicated to depositors in “peacetime” while the bulk of uninsured deposits would be protected in a resolution. Although some might argue that a mechanism like this might increase the risk of a bank run, I think if the percentage is well-chosen, it might actually be stabilizing by eliminating the uninsured depositor’s nightmare scenario of losing all their money. In the end, all debates about the best way to proceed revolve around how much shareholders, creditors and uninsured depositors of the failing bank should pay and how much healthy banks should pay. As I already said, it has never been the taxpayer. And perhaps capping the maximum loss on uninsured deposits upfront would put an end to ad hoc involvement by the government once and for all.
5. AI is transformational, will have tremendous positive impacts on society, and is not a speculative bubble, but AI will also create serious new risks, including job displacement; AI will also have second- and third-order effects
The importance of AI is real — and while I hesitate to use the word transformational — it is. The pace of adoption will likely be far faster than prior technological transformations, like electricity or the internet. Those took decades to roll out, but this implementation looks likely to accelerate over the next few years. Our Chief Operating Officer describes our efforts in more detail, but I want to make some key points here.
- We will not put our heads in the sand. We will deploy AI, as we deploy all technology, to do a better job for our customers (and employees).
- AI will affect virtually every function, application and process in the company. And in the long run, it will have a huge positive impact on productivity. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that AI will cure some cancers, create new composites and reduce accidental deaths, among other positive outcomes. It will eventually reduce the workweek in the developed world. And people will live longer and safer.
- We do not yet know exactly how AI will unfold. The landscape will change rapidly, with shifting assumptions about power consumption, costs, chip technologies and the speed at which data centers are deployed. There will be a wide variety of AI models — open and closed, large and small — and no single tool will dominate. Overall, the investment in AI is not a speculative bubble; rather, it will deliver significant benefits. However, at this time, we cannot predict the ultimate winners and losers in AI- related industries.
- AI is a genuine technological shift that will impact many sectors, including physical industries and scientific research. AI is only beginning to be applied broadly in science, and its influence will continue to expand.
- AI will also introduce serious new risks — from deepfakes and misinformation to cybersecurity vulnerabilities. These risks are real, but they are manageable if companies, regulators and governments prepare. The worst mistakes we can make are predictable: overreact at the first serious incident and regulate out important innovation or underreact and fail to learn from what went wrong. The right approach requires rigorous preparation in advance, an honest assessment when things go wrong — and they will — and discipline to fix what’s broken without destroying what works.
- AI will definitely eliminate some jobs, while it enhances others. Our firm will have definitive plans on how we can support and redeploy our affected workforce.
- AI will create many jobs — some we can see today in cybersecurity and AI itself, and some we can’t see. But we do know that there is a huge workforce shortage for many well-paying white- and blue-collar jobs.
- There is a possibility that AI deployment will move faster than workforce adaptation to new job creation. In prior technological transformations, labor had time to adjust and retrain. We do believe that business and government can do many things to properly incent retraining, income assistance, reskilling, early retirement and relocation for those whose job might be adversely impacted by AI (I talk about some of these ideas in Section IV around work skills training and the Earned Income Tax Credit).
One last but important point: We have focused on some of the “known and predictable” and some of the “known unknown” events. But huge technological shifts like AI always have second- and third-order effects as well that can deeply impact society. Some of these are, for example, cars bringing about the development of suburbs and shopping malls; agriculture enabling cities; and the original internet (invented back in 1969) leading to mobile phones, apps and social media. We should be monitoring for this kind of transformation, too.
6. Small teams are required to execute with speed
It’s essential to organize in small teams for super speed.
The real competitive battles are fought at the detailed segment level: It’s not just investment banking or the investment banking healthcare sector; it’s having the right team to win in healthcare pharma or medical devices. It’s not just credit card or even affluent brands; it’s the Chase Sapphire® card. It’s not small business clients in branches; it’s restaurateurs or law firms. It’s not digital payments; it’s 24/7 digital payments with automatic currency conversions. It’s hundreds of small teams (including technology, AI, marketing, subject matter experts and others) attacking specific problems. The teams needed to tackle these challenges should be small and authorized with the decision-making ability to move and act like Navy SEALs or the Army’s Delta Force. Finally, they need to be dedicated to the task at hand. Very often when a management team wants to accomplish something new, like create a digital account opening process that cuts across virtually every area, everyone on the team says, “We’ll get it done,” meaning they will add it to the long list of tasks already on their plate. But when efforts are 1% of a lot of people’s jobs, it will never get done. You need a team 100% dedicated to the mission — and everyone else supports them.
7. The global and US economy is very different today compared to 20 years ago in terms of (1) the importance of energy, (2) the size of the financial markets, (3) the composition of the players in the financial markets, (4) the size of investment portfolios, (5) the composition of holders of US Treasuries, and (6) central bank activity
It’s helpful to recognize that the world’s economy is far larger and more diversified and far less reliant on energy as an input versus 20 years ago. Global energy consumption to the global gross domestic product (GDP) is only about 40% of what it was around 45 years ago, say in the early 1980s, and the United States, instead of being a major importer on a net basis, is now a major exporter…
…If you look at the tables below, there are a few items that are truly different now from what they were in 2010, and these may well lead to different and unexpected outcomes. To name a few: The global debt and equity markets are far bigger than before (as are global deficits). Many nonbank financial institutions and investors are dramatically bigger than they were in the past (think hedge funds, private equity funds, sovereign wealth funds, among others). Global foreign portfolio investments are far bigger than before, and a large stock of U.S. Treasuries owned by foreigners is not held by central banks (central banks are less likely to make dramatic changes in their holdings of U.S. Treasuries). In addition, global QE is far bigger than it ever was before. A change in sentiment could easily affect the global flow of investments into securities, including U.S. Treasuries. You can also see that brokerage inventories are far smaller as a percentage of investments than ever before and, as a result, market makers are less able to intermediate in extremely volatile markets.
8. The US remains the world’s best investment destination; the US must continue to be the premier military force globally, maintain its economic position, and manage its foreign economic affairs, in order to remain strong
It is also good to remember that the United States remains the world’s best investment destination, particularly when things are going badly…
…There are three critical issues that will ultimately determine the health and safety of the United States and possibly determine the future direction and strength of the free and democratic world. JPMorganChase and its employees — like all other businesses and individuals — will be deeply affected over time by how the United States succeeds in these areas:
- The United States must maintain the premier military force in the world.
- The United States must maintain its preeminent economic position in the world, which also requires reigniting the American Dream.
- The United States must manage its foreign economic affairs to strengthen the U.S. economy and that of our critical allies so that the first two points remain true.
9. Inflation is a risk to the US and global economy in 2026; other large risks to watch include (1) Russia’s ongoing war with Ukraine, and the US and Israel’s ongoing war with Iran, (2) high sovereign deficits and debt, (3) high asset prices and low credit spreads, (4) new trade arrangements, (5) the relationship between the US and China, (6) private credit, (7) lengthy holding periods of private equity investments, and (8) cybersecurity; losses on leveraged lending could be higher than most expect when a credit cycle happens
The skunk at the party — and it could happen in 2026 — would be inflation slowly going up, as opposed to slowly going down. This alone could cause interest rates to rise and asset prices to drop. Interest rates are like gravity to almost all asset prices. And falling asset prices at one point can change sentiment rapidly and cause a flight to cash…
…I think some of the larger risks are much like tectonic plates, always moving and periodically causing earthquakes and volcanoes when they crash into each other. Some of the larger risks we should keep our eyes on are:
- First and foremost, geopolitics. Russia’s war in Ukraine and its ongoing sabotage in Europe and now the war in Iran and its potential effects on energy prices can cause events that are unpredictable. We all hope these wars get properly resolved. But war is the realm of uncertainty, as each side in a war determines what it wants to do (as is often said, “the enemy gets a vote”), and these conflicts involve many countries. Not only do they have a major impact on the nations at war, but they also have an impact on countries and economies across the globe that are not directly involved in war. Nations that are heavily dependent upon imported energy are already seeing the effects. And it’s not just energy, it’s commodity products that are byproducts of oil and gas, like fertilizer and helium. And given our complex global supply chains, countries are experiencing disruptions in shipbuilding, food and farming, among others. The outcome of current geopolitical events may very well be the defining factor in how the future global economic order unfolds — then again, it may not.
- High global sovereign deficits and debt. Global deficits are significantly elevated, particularly during what has been a relatively healthy global economy and, until recently, a time of peace — the deficit globally is at an extremely high 5%, while global sovereign debt is at all-time highs. The current forecast from the Congressional Budget Office has our debt-to-GDP ratio going from 100% today to 120% in 2036. High government debt is somewhat offset by low consumer debt, which was nearly 100% of GDP in 2007 and is now below 70%. Similarly, corporate debt is at a fairly normal healthy level of 45%. High and increasing government debt will eventually have to be dealt with — the right way would be to deal with it now before it becomes a problem; the wrong way would be to let it become a crisis, which, in my opinion, is probably the likely outcome. Importantly, almost 60% of government spending is for entitlements and is not discretionary. This makes the job that much harder. A crucial note on the importance of growth: If interest rates went down 100 basis points and GDP grew at 3%, the debt-to-GDP ratio could actually start to go down instead of going up.
- High asset prices and very low credit spreads. In and of itself, this is not a bad thing. Household net worth as a percentage of GDP is now 560%. The high during the housing peak in 2006 was 460%. But this also means that anything less than positive outcomes could have a dramatic impact on global markets. Rapidly decreasing asset prices can sometimes create a self-reinforcing loop. It’s always good to remember that prices are set by the marginal buyers and sellers — which, on the average day, is only a small fraction of asset owners. And it’s also good to remember that foreigners own almost $30 trillion of U.S. equities and bonds. While U.S. investments and the U.S. dollar are generally havens of security in a troubled world, that didn’t stop recessions and bad markets in prior times.
- Trade 2.0. The U.S. tariffs themselves had only minor effects on inflation or growth, and were only one straw on the camel’s back. But the trade battles are clearly not over, and it should be expected that many nations are analyzing how and with whom they should create trade arrangements. This is causing a realignment of economic relations in the world. While some of this is necessary for national security and resiliency, which are paramount, it is hard to figure out what the long-term effects will be.
- U.S. and China relations. This relationship is critical to the whole world and is also impacted by the events mentioned above. The United States and China clearly have different systems, values, goals and objectives, and while both sides are currently engaging, we have to expect that there will be some bumps in the road — maybe even some large ones. We should all hope that ongoing proper engagement continues to lead to what may be a competitive but peaceful future.
- Private credit and credit in general. The leveraged private credit market totals $1.8 trillion. As a comparison, the U.S. high yield bond market totals $1.5 trillion, and the bank syndicated leveraged loan market totals $1.7 trillion. Taking a wider view, the total market size of investment grade bonds is $13 trillion. And the total market value of all residential mortgage securities and loans is also $13 trillion. In the great scheme of things, private credit probably does not present a systemic risk.
I do believe that when we have a credit cycle, which will happen one day, losses on all leveraged lending in general will be higher than expected, relative to the environment. This is because credit standards have been modestly weakening pretty much across the board; i.e., more aggressive and positive assumptions about future performance (called add-backs), weaker covenants, more use of PIK (payment-in-kind; not paying interest in cash but accruing it), more aggressive private ratings (particularly in insurance companies) and more arbitrage (not always a great sign). Also, by and large, private credit does not tend to have great transparency or rigorous valuation “marks” of their loans — this increases the chance that people will sell if they think the environment will get worse — even if actual realized losses barely change. Additionally, actual losses right now are already a little higher than they should be, relative to the environment. Finally, if rates or credit spreads ever go up, the companies that borrowed will have to borrow at even higher rates, putting them under even greater stress. However this plays out, it should be expected that at some point insurance regulators will insist on more rigorous ratings or markdowns, which will likely lead to demands for more capital.
It has always been true that not everyone providing credit is necessarily good at it. There are many players who are late to this game, and it should be expected that some credit providers will do a far worse job than others. We have not had a credit recession in a long time, and it seems that some people assume it will never happen.
Additionally, anything that gets sold to retail investors as opposed to institutional investors requires greater transparency, higher standards and fewer potential conflicts. If anything ever goes wrong, you should assume that retail investors, even though they were told about some of the risks, will seek remedy in the courts. Also, some of these loans go into various funds run by the asset management company. Generally, each of these funds has its own objectives and its own fiduciary responsibility to make sure that the loans are suitable for that specific fund. Those who do not do this properly are likely to get into trouble. - Private markets. With stock markets at all-time highs in recent months, it is a little surprising that private equity firms, which own close to 13,000 companies, have not taken greater advantage of healthy markets to take their companies public. Private equity investments are now held for an average of seven years — this is virtually double what it used to be. And some are sold, not to another company or taken public, and put in a new fund called a continuation fund. We have generally had nothing but a bull market since the great financial crisis — it’s hard to imagine what will happen if and when we have an extended bear market.
- Cyber risk. I have to mention this because it remains one of our biggest risks, and this is probably true for many other major industries and corporations. AI will almost surely make this risk worse. We invest significantly to protect ourselves and stay vigilant.
10. There are a number of things that will have a positive impact on the US economy in 2026, and they are (1) the One Big Beautiful Bill, (2) purchases of securities by the Federal Reserve, (3) less restrictive regulations, and (4) AI-related capital spending
While there are many larger risks, as discussed in the next section, that may or may not impact the economy in 2026, we do know several things that will have a positive impact on the economy in the remainder of this year. They are:
- Increasing fiscal stimulus from the One Big Beautiful Bill. Our economists believe this will inject another $300 billion (effectively 1% of GDP) into the economy. This has to be very modestly inflationary this year.
- Benefits from the Fed’s purchase of $40 billion of additional securities each month, which is supposed to be reduced to $20 billion–$25 billion this April. At a minimum, this supports asset prices and helps ensure there is no liquidity squeeze in the financial system.
- Positive effects of comprehensive deregulatory policies. This was badly needed and long overdue. Change is clearly evident in bank regulations that will free up capital and liquidity, which can be lent out (and we already see this happening), and in deregulation across many other industries, from energy to home building. It is fair to say that actions taken have clearly increased confidence and animal spirits. This should add to productivity and be modestly deflationary this year.
- Huge increase in AI-driven capital spending and construction by the five hyperscalers. In 2025, this number was $450 billion, and in 2026, it will be approximately $725 billion. While AI will clearly drive productivity, which is generally good for inflation in the long run, all of this spending is probably inflationary in the short run.
Some of the items above have mild inflationary effects, while others probably have some deflationary effects.
11. The US has come together before to overcome incredible challenges
We have met big challenges before. At one point in 1940, only one nation, the United Kingdom, stood against the Nazi war machine, which had already conquered most of Western Europe. The United States was unprepared for what was going to happen but rose to the challenge. You may find it uplifting to read the book Freedom’s Forge, which shows how the United States came together to build the arsenal of freedom and to keep the world safe for democracy.
12. The US has become too dependent on unreliable sources for its national security needs
The United States has also allowed itself to become too dependent on unreliable sources for items that are essential to our national security, such as critical minerals, semiconductors and advanced manufacturing output, among others. We have maintained insufficient productive capabilities to be ready to quickly increase production if necessary. And our military needs to be able to rapidly develop new and often cheaper weapons, like drones.
13. The US could have grown even faster over the past 20 years than what it actually did
Over the last 20 years or so, U.S. GDP has averaged about 2% annually — I believe we could have easily achieved at least 3% growth. The reason we were able to grow 2% is that America’s businesses and entrepreneurial spirit allowed us to overcome a lot of the roadblocks mentioned later in this section. That 1% difference would have had an enormous impact, providing Americans with an extra $20,000 GDP per person annually, giving us resources to take care of nearly all our problems and jump-starting deficit reduction. Growth is part of the solution to almost all of our problems…
…I am going to mention a few damaging policies, not in detail because I’ve written about them in the past, but if they aren’t corrected, real progress may be impossible.
- Fraud, waste and abuse…
- …Inefficiencies within the federal government (and within state and local governments, too)…
- …Mortgage and regulatory policies and local housing requirements….
- …Red and “blue” tape, permitting reforms and a little litigation reform…
- …Policy uncertainty…
- …Unreliable R&D policies…
- …Failure to recognize that capital formation drives growth.
14. Supportive policies for capital formation in Sweden and Australia have led to great results
In Sweden, an investment savings account is available that simplifies the investing process with favorable tax treatment. Account holders can deposit and withdraw funds at any time, and there is no capital gains tax — just an annual tax of 1% on the balance. This has dramatically increased investment by retail investors into the Swedish stock market. It may surprise some of our readers that Sweden’s policies have created a growing and innovative stock market and that Sweden has more unicorns and billionaires per person than America does. Another example is Australia, which has a wonderful retirement policy based on superannuation, a savings account funded by both employer and employee contributions.
15. The private sector should be the one allocating capital, not the government
Industrial policy mechanisms, when used, should be as targeted and as simple as possible. They come in many guises: grants, cheap loans, equity investing, purchase agreements and others. The cleanest of these is tax credits in various forms. Whatever the policy, two rules should not be violated: (1) there should be no social engineering — this is not a jobs program (the Jones Act meant to preserve jobs in the Merchant Marine has basically destroyed our Merchant Marine and merchant ship building business) and (2) for the most part, the market should allocate capital, not the government. Industrial policy can easily devolve into a buffet where corporate America gorges at the expense of the taxpayer. While there are certain circumstances that require the government to allocate capital (think infrastructure and national security), generally the government is simply not good at allocating capital in a free market. America does best not with central planning but with consistent and clear policies that are conducive to growth.
16. Europe is currently on a very bad path of decline and fragmentation; Europe’s defense industrial base is not in good shape
I believe we are staring one in the face: the slow but constant decline and fragmentation of Europe. Europe is entering a decisive decade, and it is unable to act. The EU was an extraordinary accomplishment —nations coming together and using political and peaceful means to settle differences. And this after a millennium of terrible wars. It worked, but it only went halfway. Europe never finished the economic union (see the Draghi report), which meant that European countries constantly underperformed economically. This has led to their GDP relative to the United States going from 90% in the year 2000 to approximately 70% today. This fragmentation remains a structural drag on competitiveness. As former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi has noted, internal EU market barriers function like “hard tariffs” of approximately 45% for manufacturing and 110% for services. Those barriers reflect not a failure of ambition but rather a failure of integration. This has led to a lack of scale for their major businesses and a lack of mobility for both capital and people.
EU nations also created whole new layers of bureaucracy that reduced innovation, growth and investment among other things. This will continue unless European leaders dramatically change course. If they don’t, they will eventually be unable to afford their social safety nets, restrengthen their nations’ militaries and grow their economies. The EU is currently home to world-class companies, deep pools of savings and a talented workforce. But without new EU direction, their major global companies will weaken, faced with very strong American and Chinese competition. The ultimate loser in all this will be Europe and all its citizens — and it will hurt the United States as well.
Europe and America are each other’s largest trade partners at $2 trillion a year…
…Yet Europe’s defense industrial base is still not fit for purpose. This is as much an economic and industrial challenge as a military one. The continent needs enduring production capacity, coordinated procurement and dual-use manufacturing that serves both commercial and defense sectors.
17. Strong leadership by the US is still required for global prosperity
Strong American leadership is required – there is no real alternative.
Some political leaders have said that there is a “rupture” between America and the Western world — that the red lines have been crossed and there is no return to the prior system. I completely disagree. There is no practical replacement to the prior system. It has not ruptured, but it needs reform. The middle-sized nations do not have real alternatives in terms of building a unified military or a unified economy that can compete effectively with the United States and China. If these middle nations did, the result would look a lot like what Europe is today: dysfunctional. The only practical alternative is to fix the current situation.
The United States and Europe have an extraordinary number of commonalities, including values deeply held. For more than 75 years since the end of World War II, the United States and Europe have worked together to resolve most major global economic or military challenges and in fighting terrorism and nuclear proliferation. We need this cooperation for the next 75 years.
I do not want to contemplate the opposite. Without American leadership, there would be a huge vacuum. If not us, who? We are the only country that has the capability to do it. Fragmented relationships with and among our extensive allies could lead to an “every nation for themselves” mentality. America would become more isolated, the U.S. dollar would no longer be the world’s reserve currency and autocratic nations would rejoice. Need I say more?
Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life. I don’t have a vested interest in any company mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time.