FinanceMap scores this financial institution in the following areas. Please navigate to the relevant tab for in-depth analysis
FinanceMap assesses these portfolios for this financial institution. Please navigate to the relevant tab for in-depth analysis.
The organization has assigned climate-related responsibilities to its board committees, and the board appears to incorporate climate in guiding corporate strategy and in risk management processes and policies. Additionally, it has assigned clear climate-related responsibilities to management-level positions and committees.
JPMorgan Chase defines what it considers to be short, medium, and long term time horizons and considers phyiscal and transition risks, but it does not disclose the climate-related risks and opportunities in relation to these time horizons. The organization considers climate-related risks and opportunities on its lending, underwriting, and investment business activities and has disclosed some of the processes used to determine which risks and opportunities could have a material financial impact on the organization.
It has provided numerous examples of how it has considered climate-related risks and opportunities in business planning. This includes its ‘Center for Carbon Transition’ which advises teams on how products or investment strategies can contribute to a lower-carbon economy as well as examples of how it incorporates climate-related risks and opportunities into new and existing teams and services across the business.
In 2022 the organization conducted several scenario analyses on transition risks at both a macro and sector-level, as well as an IPCC-derived physical risk scenario, although results of the scenario analysis lack detail in its reporting. In 2021, it participated in pilot exercises to assess transition risks to carbon-intensive industries using the IEA Sustainable Development Scenario and analyzed physical risks on its home lending and commercial real estate portfolios. The organization does not describe how it plans to respond to the impacts that it identified in the range of scenario analyses.
JPMorgan Chase is transparent about the risk types it considers in its climate risks assessments, and uses a heatmap to identify, and prioritize climate-related risks for its wholesale credit portfolio. It also developed an internal classification system that translates climate-related drivers into potential risks to the firm.
The firm has a dedicated climate risk team which develops relevant policies and standards to manage climate risks. However, descriptions of risk management processes lack detail and examples provided are limited and not widely applicable.
In its 2020 ESG Report, the organization stated that is enhancing its integration of climate risk into its existing firm wide risk management process and has outlined deliverables to define its success. As of 2022, the organization appears to have integrated climate risk assessments into its risk management approach for some business areas.
The organization is transparent about some key metrics used to measure and manage climate-related risks and opportunities, including credit exposures to physical risks and carbon intensity, capital expenditure towards climate-related opportunities, and ESG remuneration policies.
The organization discloses Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions data, but only limited relevant Scope 3 emissions data. JPMorgan Chase has limited disclosure of financed emissions in its 2022 Climate Report, disclosing the emissions intensity for several sectors in its portfolio including iron and steel, cement, aviation, oil and gas, electric power, and auto manufacturing. However, it has not disclosed any absolute financed emissions data.
The organization has announced a Paris-aligned financing target and in October 2021, JPMorgan joined the Net Zero Banking Alliance. In 2020 it published interim 2030 portfolio emissions reduction targets for the oil and gas, electric power, and auto manufacturing sector with 2019 as the portfolio baseline that appear to align with the IEA SDS and B2DS scenarios. In 2022, JPMorgan added three additional interim sector targets for iron and steel, cement, and aviation. However, these targets are for emissions intensity reduction and not based on absolute metrics, and appear to only apply to its financing activities.
As of April 2023, JMPC’s position on coal appears mostly unchanged to its 2020 position. The organization has prohibited financing for the development of greenfield coal mines or expansion of an existing mine as well as new coal-fired power plants or the expansion and/or refinancing of an existing plant. Notably, it has not set a coal phase out in line with IPCC guidance.
With regard to natural gas, the organization’s policies remain largely unchanged. JPMorgan Chase has set some exclusionary policies for unconventional gas activities, however the organization appears to otherwise participate in unbated natural gas financing. The entity also appears to be supporting a continued role for gas with CCS in the energy mix, although it is unclear the conditions or timelines for CCS deployment.
The organization appears to have a similar position on unconventional oil investments. The entity has established oil financing exclusion policies for specific activities like Arctic drilling or tar sands but appears to otherwise finance expanding oil infrastructure. JPMorgan appears to support a shift away from oil towards less carbon-intensive sources like natural gas and renewables, but the extent to which gas is seen as a long-term energy solution is unclear.
The entity has communicated support for a net-zero economy and is increasing its financing of renewables to support the climate action.
FinanceMap’s Climate Governance and Policies analysis assesses statements financial institutions (FIs) are making on how they are incorporating climate issues into their decision-making and operations using FinanceMap’s matrix methodology. This methodology is adapted from the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations and guidelines, Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) or equivalent Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net-Zero (GFANZ) initiative reporting, and IPCC and IEA technology statements. The TCFD provide guidance on 11 recommendations across four areas which are reflected in our matrix: Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, and Metrics and Targets. Additional benchmarks have been introduced to strengthen the ambition of scoring criteria in the assessment of targets, which are supplemented by guidance from the NZBA or equivalent GFANZ initiatives.
Additionally, Science-Based Policy (SBP) benchmarks are used to measure alignment of an FIs technology positions with the science of climate change. These benchmarks are applied to an FIs internal policies on technologies including coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and renewables and also assesses its engagement with broader climate and energy policy issues such as advocacy on the role and importance of different strategy types in the future energy mix.
For each TCFD recommendation and technology, FIs statements are applied to a five point scoring scale ranging from +2 to -2, measuring alignment with the relevant benchmarks. The detailed scores for this FI are displayed below within each matrix cell.
The following table outlines the key queries and data sources, which FinanceMap uses to assess financial institutions climate governance, targets and policies. Every evidence piece is assessed on a five-point scale of -2,-1,0,1,2 or NA (not applicable)/NS (not scored). All queries, data sources, and evidence pieces are weighted against one another in a matrix system to arrive at a final top-level score. Clicking on specific cells will load the underlying evidence and information on how it has been assessed.
Fossil fuel companies are those whose primary sector falls within coal mining and services, or up-, mid-, and downstream oil and gas sectors. Green companies are defined as companies having over 75% revenue deriving from Substantial Contribution to Mitigation activities under the EU Taxonomy.
Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area assesses deals in 2020–2022.
Value Assessed: $1.13T
Sector Paris Alignment scores for the sectors to which this portfolio has exposure. FinanceMap Paris Alignment analysis is limited to the automotive, upstream fossil fuel, and power sectors.
Fossil fuel companies are those whose primary sector falls within coal mining and services, or up-, mid-, and downstream oil and gas sectors. Green companies are defined as companies having over 75% revenue deriving from Substantial Contribution to Mitigation activities under the EU Taxonomy.
Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area assesses deals in 2020–2022.
Value Assessed: $701B
Sector Paris Alignment scores for the sectors to which this portfolio has exposure. FinanceMap Paris Alignment analysis is limited to the automotive, upstream fossil fuel, and power sectors.
Fossil fuel companies are those whose primary sector falls within coal mining and services, or up-, mid-, and downstream oil and gas sectors. Green companies are defined as companies having over 75% revenue deriving from Substantial Contribution to Mitigation activities under the EU Taxonomy.
Portion of AUM Assessed: $466B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Nextera Energy Inc | 16.5% |
| Xcel Energy Inc | 14.0% |
| RWE AG | 8.5% |
| Entergy Corp | 5.7% |
| Public Service Enterprise Group Inc | 5.6% |
| CMS Energy Corp | 5.4% |
| Dominion Energy Inc | 4.7% |
| Iberdrola SA | 4.4% |
| Engie SA | 3.2% |
| Portland General Electric Co | 3.0% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Stellantis NV | 25.6% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 11.3% |
| Volkswagen AG | 10.2% |
| Kia Corp | 10.0% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 6.8% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 6.8% |
| Mercedes Benz Group AG | 4.0% |
| Guangzhou Automobile Group Co Ltd | 3.8% |
| Renault SA | 3.2% |
| Maruti Suzuki India Ltd | 3.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Glencore PLC | 44.2% |
| Arch Resources Inc | 21.4% |
| Peabody Energy Corp | 18.3% |
| CONSOL Energy Inc | 3.5% |
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 3.0% |
| Hargreaves Services PLC | 1.7% |
| Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc | 1.5% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 1.1% |
| Whitehaven Coal Ltd | 1.1% |
| Exxaro Resources Ltd | 0.9% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Conocophillips | 19.3% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 11.3% |
| BP PLC | 7.8% |
| EOG Resources Inc | 7.4% |
| Shell PLC | 6.6% |
| Chevron Corp | 6.6% |
| TotalEnergies SE | 4.1% |
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 3.9% |
| Diamondback Energy Inc | 2.3% |
| NK Rosneft' PAO | 2.1% |
JP Morgan Chase (JP Morgan) does not appear to be strongly engaging with companies around climate change. The asset manager has a universal strategy for climate engagements, having identified climate risk as a main stewardship priority as well as starting two net zero emissions focused projects in 2021 involving international oil and gas companies on the supply and demand side. It has detailed its process for assessing the effectiveness of engagements which uses milestones. Additionally, it has a defined escalation strategy which may include voting against management and non-executive directors, collaborating with investors, divestment, etc.
JP Morgan has engaged with companies on climate, for example, it engaged with Shin Etsu Chemical on the company’s climate targets and climate risk reporting and with PPT Plc on the company’s emissions intensity target. Additionally, it has engaged with Phillips 66 on concerns regarding its climate risk reporting, including disclosure on lobbying activities, though it is unclear whether the asset manager is actively engaging with companies on climate lobbying. JP Morgan appears to be collaboratively engaging around climate and in 2022 co-led two CA100+ engagements and participated in five others.
The asset manager has clearly described its stewardship governance structure and processes to review its policies and activities. For example, it conducted an in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of its engagement approach in 2021 which resulted in the organization establishing engagement working groups. JP Morgan appears to be improving the transparency of its engagements, providing named case studies in its 2021 and 2022 Stewardship Report. It discloses its proxy voting guidelines, though is partially transparent about its voting record and does not provide voting justifications.
While the asset manager previously did not appear to use shareholder authority on climate, in 2022 it voted in favor of four new non-executive directors at AGL on climate grounds.
Insightia data suggests that JP Morgan is broadly unsupportive of AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 5.4% in 2019, 37.1% in 2020, 43.5% in 2021, and 30.6% in 2022.
FinanceMap's methodology to measure the engagement process on climate was developed in consultation with several of the world's leading asset managers and uses key aspects of the UK Financial Reporting Council's 2020 Stewardship Code . The Stewardship Code was chosen to benchmark engagement quality as it provides an ambitious framework and detailed definitions of what constitutes effective engagement. FinanceMap defines the term ‘engagement’ as referring to all investor actions undertaken to influence the management strategy of the companies they own including private communications with corporate management and appointed advisors; questions at AGMs/other company meetings; comments on the company in the media; escalation and the shareholder resolution process (filing, voting behavior). FinanceMap’s methodology breaks the engagement process down into a set of sub-activities and looks for evidence associated with these across publicly available data sources.
Climate-relevance categorization of shareholder resolutions is based on the IPCC’s Special Report on 1.5°C and its concluded need for “rapid and far-reaching transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities.” FinanceMap scored voting on any resolution where the intent and likely outcome is consistent with this IPCC stated need. The voting data is drawn from asset managers' disclosures to the US Security Exchange Commission (SEC), asset manager websites (including third-party websites they link to), directly from the asset managers, and through specialist voting data provider Insightia. The full list of resolutions assessed is available here.
The following table outlines the key queries and data sources, which FinanceMap uses to assess asset managers' corporate engagement programs. Every evidence piece is assessed on a five-point scale of -2,-1,0,1,2 or NA (not applicable)/NS (not scored). All queries, data sources, and evidence pieces are weighted against one another in a matrix system to arrive at a final top-level score. Clicking on specific cells will load the underlying evidence and information on how it has been assessed.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPMorgan) appears to have had limited engagement on sustainable finance policy, but, where it has engaged, appears not to have supported stringent regulatory intervention despite some top-line statements of support. A significant amount of JPMorgan’s position-taking emerges via its asset management arm, JPMorgan Asset Management.
JPMorgan has stated support for the goals of the Paris Agreement and efforts to limit temperature rise to 1.5C. In 2021 JPMorgan joined the Net Zero Banking Alliance and JPMorgan Asset Management joined the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, supporting the goal of net zero by 2050. However, JPMorgan appears to support a less stringent climate response than the IPCC, supporting continued investment in oil and gas. In October 2021, JPMorgan’s head of ESG for EMEA suggested that oil and gas companies were “part of the solution” to climate change. CEO Jamie Dimon has stated support for accelerating the transition to a low carbon economy but has also advocated for a continued role for oil and gas. In his letter to shareholders in 2022, Dimon argued that for the purposes of energy security the US must increase oil and gas production, asserting that this increased production would not conflict with long-term climate goals. Dimon also directly advocated for the Biden Administration to scale up investments in the US fossil fuel sector in the midst of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and in a 2023 interview Dimon asserted that the world would need “cheap oil and gas for 50 years.” A letter submitted to the Municipal Advisory Council of Texas in September 2022 shows evidence of JPMorgan’s continued support for investing in fossil fuels. JPMorgan Asset Management has described engaging with regulators on sustainable finance policies and has stated support for “the healthy growth of ESG implementation.”
JPMorgan Asset Management has voiced some support for regulated corporate ESG disclosure, contrasting with JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon’s stated opposition to mandated climate reporting. Both JPMorgan and its asset management arm have outlined concerns with the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) proposed climate disclosure rule.
In an interview with ESG Investor in 2021, Global Head of Sustainable Investing Jennifer Wu stated support for mandatory climate disclosures, and in an interview with ESG Clarity in August 2022, APAC Lead Sustainable Investing Strategist Tomomi Shimada stated support for mandatory corporate ESG disclosures in Asia. A 2021 paper on JPMorgan Asset Management’s website suggests support for moves toward regulated corporate ESG disclosure in China. However, in a Wall Street Journal article from October 2022 JPMorgan Asset Management appears unsupportive of the SEC mandating Scope 3 emissions disclosure, and a September 2022 memo shows that JPMorgan, as constituents of the Financial Services Forum, met with the SEC to discuss its proposed climate disclosure rule, including concerns about "burden and cost," time for implementation, and financial statement provisions. Finally, InfluenceMap obtained documents that show that JPMorgan raised concerns with the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) in a December 2022 meeting with the Executive Vice-President of the European Commission.
In a 2022 article, JPMorgan Asset Management appeared supportive of the EU taxonomy, stating that it would improve investor decision-making.
In comments to the SEC in 2022, JPMorgan Asset Management supported the introduction of three ESG-related fund categories, and supported extending the Commission’s “Names Rule” to funds with ESG-related terms in their names but requested that the Rule’s 80% investment compliance be tested less frequently than proposed. JPMorgan Asset Management also generally supported the UK Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) proposed ESG product labeling and standards in a January 2022 comment letter. In February 2023, Responsible Investor reported that JPMorgan Asset Management did not support the European Securities and Markets Authority’s (ESMA) proposed guidelines for funds with names that use ‘ESG’ or ‘sustainability.’
In a 2022 paper JPMorgan Asset Management appeared to support the EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR). In 2022 comments on the SEC’s proposed disclosure requirements for investment advisers and investment companies on ESG investment practices, JPMorgan Asset Management broadly supported the proposal but recommended a summary approach to disclosure rather than the detailed draft requirements, and recommended that funds not be required to disclose Scope 3 emissions.
In a 2021 paper JPMorgan Asset Management appeared to support the European Commission’s proposal to apply climate stress scenarios to insurers’ balance sheets. A March 2022 memo from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) shows that JPMorgan, as constituents of the Bank Policy Institute, met with the OCC to outline “challenges” to its draft principles for climate-related financial risk management.
JPMorgan Asset Management has detailed some of the sustainable finance policies it is tracking with some level of detail on desired outcome, but no detail on efforts to influence outcome. JPMorgan lacks such disclosure. JPMorgan has disclosed memberships to US trade associations but has not given details on the sustainable finance policy positions of these organizations. The disclosure is also missing Europe-based memberships such as EFAMA and PensionsEurope.
InfluenceMap’s methodology for assessing lobbying on sustainable finance policy closely follows InfluenceMap’s established methodology on climate policy engagement, which is used extensively by investors, including via the Climate Action 100+ investor engagement process. Our full methodology can be found here.
Under our assessment of sustainable finance lobbying, InfluenceMap considers engagement on all financial policies which intersect with climate and/or other sustainability issues. The analysis takes into account both the engagement of the financial institution and the activities of industry associations they hold membership of.
InfluenceMap’s methodology covers seven publicly available data sources, searching for evidence of engagement and corporate positioning since 2017. To determine the policy issues within the scope of the analysis, InfluenceMap breaks down sustainable finance policy engagement into a series of subcategories, or 'queries'. These are designed to cover high-level issues relating to the importance of sustainable finance, as well as more specific areas of sustainable finance policymaking. InfluenceMap’s research process searches for evidence of an organization's engagement with each sustainable finance policy issue, across each of the data sources.
The following table outlines the key queries and data sources, which FinanceMap uses to assess financial institutions’ sustainable finance policy engagement. Every evidence piece is assessed on a five-point scale of -2,-1,0,1,2 or NA (not applicable)/NS (not scored). All queries, data sources, and evidence pieces are weighted against one another in a matrix system to arrive at a final top-level score. Clicking on specific cells will load the underlying evidence and information on how it has been assessed.
In this section, we depict graphically the relationships the corporation has with trade associations, federations, advocacy groups and other third parties who may be acting on their behalf to influence climate change policy. Each of the columns above represents one relationship the corporation appears to have with such a third party.
In these columns, the top, dark section represents the strength of the relationship the corporation has with the influencer. For example if a corporation's senior executive also held a key role in the trade association, we would deem this to be a strong relationship and it would be on the far left of the chart above, with the weaker ones to the right. Click on these grey shaded upper sections for details of these relationships. The middle section contains a link to the organization score details of the influencer concerned, so you can see the details of its climate change policy influence. Click on the middle sections for for details of the trade associations. The lower section contains the organization score of that influencer, the lower the more negatively it is influencing climate policy.
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Jamie Dimon is Chairman of BPI.
Jamie Dimon (Chairman and CEO, JPMorgan Chase & Co.)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Jamie Dimon is Chairman of BPI.
Jamie Dimon (Chairman and CEO, JPMorgan Chase & Co.)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Jamie Dimon is a member of the Business Roundtable Board of Directors
Jamie Dimon (Chairman and CEO, JPMorgan Chase & Co.)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Jamie Dimon is a member of the Business Roundtable Board of Directors as Chair of the Nominating and Membership Committee.
Jamie Dimon (Chairman and CEO, JPMorgan Chase & Co.)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Jamie Dimon is a member of the Business Roundtable Board of Directors
Jamie Dimon (Chairman and CEO, JPMorgan Chase & Co.)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Jamie Dimon is a member of the Business Roundtable Board of Directors as Chair of the Nominating and Membership Committee.
Jamie Dimon (Chairman and CEO, JPMorgan Chase & Co.)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
JPMorgan is a member of ICI
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
George Gatch is on the board of ICI, a member of the Executive Committee.
George C. W. Gatch (CEO, J.P. Morgan Asset Management)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
JPMorgan is a member of ICI
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
George Gatch is on the board of ICI, a member of the Executive Committee.
George C. W. Gatch (CEO, J.P. Morgan Asset Management)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Patrick Thomson is Chair of the board at The Investment Association (last checked September 2023).
Patrick Thomson (CEO - EMEA, JP Morgan Asset Management)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Patrick Thomson is Chair of the board at The Investment Association (last checked September 2023).
Patrick Thomson (CEO - EMEA, JP Morgan Asset Management)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
Massimo Greco is vice-president of the board at EFAMA (last checked September 2023).
Massimo Greco (vice-chair at JP Asset Management)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
JP Morgan Asset Management is a member of EFAMA (last checked July 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
Jon Griffin is a member of the EFAMA board of directors. As of March 2023 this is no longer the case.
Jon Griffin (JP Morgan Asset Management)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
Massimo Greco is vice-president of the board at EFAMA (last checked September 2023).
Massimo Greco (vice-chair at JP Asset Management)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
JP Morgan Asset Management is a member of EFAMA (last checked July 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
Jon Griffin is a member of the EFAMA board of directors. As of March 2023 this is no longer the case.
Jon Griffin (JP Morgan Asset Management)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Sanjay Jhamna is on the board of AFME
Sanjay Jhamna (Global Head of Credit Trading, JPMorgan)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of September 2022, Guy America was Vice-Chair of AFME. As of March 2023, this is no longer the case.
Guy America (Head of Global Credit Markets, JP Morgan)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Sanjay Jhamna is on the board of AFME
Sanjay Jhamna (Global Head of Credit Trading, JPMorgan)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of September 2022, Guy America was Vice-Chair of AFME. As of March 2023, this is no longer the case.
Guy America (Head of Global Credit Markets, JP Morgan)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Mike Kelleher is on the board of the MFA
Mike Kelleher (Managing Director, Americas Head Equity Finance)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of March 2023, John Cossey no longer appears to be on the board of the MFA
John Cossey (Global Head, Prime Finance)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
JPMorgan is a member of the MFA.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
JP Morgan is a strategic partner of the MFA. Unclear whether JP Morgan still holds a board membership, as MFA no longer discloses its board.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Pamela Arnsten is a member of the MFA board of directors
Pamela Arnsten
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Mike Kelleher is on the board of the MFA
Mike Kelleher (Managing Director, Americas Head Equity Finance)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of March 2023, John Cossey no longer appears to be on the board of the MFA
John Cossey (Global Head, Prime Finance)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
JPMorgan is a member of the MFA.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
JP Morgan is a strategic partner of the MFA. Unclear whether JP Morgan still holds a board membership, as MFA no longer discloses its board.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Pamela Arnsten is a member of the MFA board of directors
Pamela Arnsten
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
JPMorgan is a member of IIF
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Daniel Pinto (Co-President and Chief Operating Officer/ CEO, Corporate & Investment Bank, JPMorgan Chase) is on the board of the IIF
Daniel Pinto
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
JPMorgan is a member of IIF
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Daniel Pinto (Co-President and Chief Operating Officer/ CEO, Corporate & Investment Bank, JPMorgan Chase) is on the board of the IIF
Daniel Pinto
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Marc Badrichani is a director on the board of directors at ISDA. (Last checked November 2023)
Marc Badrichani (Head of Global Sales & Research at J.P. Morgan)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
J.P. Morgan is a member of ISDA.
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Marc Badrichani is a director on the board of directors at ISDA. (Last checked November 2023)
Marc Badrichani (Head of Global Sales & Research at J.P. Morgan)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
J.P. Morgan is a member of ISDA.
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
JPMorgan is a member of ABA
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Jennifer Piepszak is on the American Bankers Association Board of Directors.
Jennifer Piepszak (Co-CEO, Consumer & Community Banking, JPMorgan Chase & Co.)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
JPMorgan is a member of ABA
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Jennifer Piepszak is on the American Bankers Association Board of Directors.
Jennifer Piepszak (Co-CEO, Consumer & Community Banking, JPMorgan Chase & Co.)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
JPMorgan is a member of SIFMA
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
David Lefkowitz is on SIFMA board
David Lefkowitz (Managing Director, Securitised Products Group, JP Morgan Chase)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
JPMorgan is a member of SIFMA
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
David Lefkowitz is on SIFMA board
David Lefkowitz (Managing Director, Securitised Products Group, JP Morgan Chase)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Jamie Dimon is a member of the Financial Services Forum.
Jamie Dimon (Chairman and CEO, JPMorgan)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Jamie Dimon is a member of the Financial Services Forum.
Jamie Dimon (Chairman and CEO, JPMorgan)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
JPMorgan Chase Bank Group is a member of UK Finance which is a national association member of EBF
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
JPMorgan Chase Bank Group is a member of UK Finance which is a national association member of EBF
not specified
--no extract--
Open PDF file of Data Source
Open PDF file of Data Source