Podcasts about jp morgan chase

In the clearest possible terms, the financial network surrounding Jeffrey Epstein was not an accident, an anomaly, or the work of a lone predator—it was a deliberately constructed ecosystem enabled by billionaires, institutions, and the largest bank in the United States. Figures like Les Wexner and Leon Black didn't just brush up against Epstein; they empowered him, legitimized him, and embedded him inside their financial worlds. Wexner gave Epstein unprecedented legal control over his empire through power-of-attorney arrangements and trust structures that effectively turned Epstein into the architect of Wexner's personal and philanthropic machinery. Black, for his part, funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Epstein under the guise of “consulting,” using offshore pathways and fee structures so inexplicable that financial experts still can't reconcile the numbers. These weren't casual business relationships—they were pipelines, mechanisms, and conduits that allowed Epstein to scale his influence far beyond what any conventional résumé could justify.But none of Epstein's financial maneuvering would have been possible without JPMorgan Chase, whose private-banking division knowingly ignored internal warnings, suspicious activity reports, and staff concerns because Epstein delivered access to elite clients and deep-pocketed networks. The bank's compliance failures weren't accidental—they represented a strategic blindness, a willingness to override red flags in pursuit of profit and prestige. Taken together, Wexner's access, Black's money, and JPMorgan's infrastructure formed the backbone of Epstein's financial power. And that is precisely why Congress avoids digging into this side of the scandal: following the money wouldn't just expose Epstein—it would expose the machinery that enabled him, and the institutions that still shape American economic and political life today.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In this episode of the Investing in Integrity podcast, Ross Overline, CEO and co-founder of Scholars of Finance, welcomes Jonathan Weiss, former CEO of Corporate and Investment Bank at Wells Fargo, and former MD of JPMorgan Chase, to reflect on leadership, trust, and ethics across a 45-year career in finance. From his unlikely start as a romance languages major to leading a $20B business, Weiss shares lessons on building ethical cultures, leading through influence, and navigating shifting political and market dynamics. He offers candid insights on rebuilding institutional trust, fostering transparency, and prioritizing customers' best interests, not just avoiding harm. Listeners will learn how humility, emotional intelligence, and consistent values shape resilient leadership and sustainable success. Whether you're early in your career or leading teams at scale, this conversation offers deep insights into balancing performance with integrity in today's financial world.Meet Jonathan Weiss:Jonathan Weiss is the former CEO of Wells Fargo Corporate & Investment Banking, where he led a $20 billion revenue business before retiring in June 2025 after two decades with the firm. Over his 45-year career, he also headed Wells Fargo's Wealth & Investment Management and Wells Fargo Securities divisions, following 25 years at J.P. Morgan and its predecessors. A Princeton graduate in Romance Languages, Weiss is recognised for his ethical leadership and service on boards including Youth I.N.C., the Lawrenceville School, and the National Humanities Center.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the clearest possible terms, the financial network surrounding Jeffrey Epstein was not an accident, an anomaly, or the work of a lone predator—it was a deliberately constructed ecosystem enabled by billionaires, institutions, and the largest bank in the United States. Figures like Les Wexner and Leon Black didn't just brush up against Epstein; they empowered him, legitimized him, and embedded him inside their financial worlds. Wexner gave Epstein unprecedented legal control over his empire through power-of-attorney arrangements and trust structures that effectively turned Epstein into the architect of Wexner's personal and philanthropic machinery. Black, for his part, funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Epstein under the guise of “consulting,” using offshore pathways and fee structures so inexplicable that financial experts still can't reconcile the numbers. These weren't casual business relationships—they were pipelines, mechanisms, and conduits that allowed Epstein to scale his influence far beyond what any conventional résumé could justify.But none of Epstein's financial maneuvering would have been possible without JPMorgan Chase, whose private-banking division knowingly ignored internal warnings, suspicious activity reports, and staff concerns because Epstein delivered access to elite clients and deep-pocketed networks. The bank's compliance failures weren't accidental—they represented a strategic blindness, a willingness to override red flags in pursuit of profit and prestige. Taken together, Wexner's access, Black's money, and JPMorgan's infrastructure formed the backbone of Epstein's financial power. And that is precisely why Congress avoids digging into this side of the scandal: following the money wouldn't just expose Epstein—it would expose the machinery that enabled him, and the institutions that still shape American economic and political life today.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Natasha Kaneva and team share J.P. Morgan's 2026 Global Commodities Outlook. Commodity prices have experienced repeated and highly synchronized cycles across various markets over the past 50 years, with these fluctuations closely tied to global economic trends through shifts in demand. This co-movement broke down in 2024, as energy prices reset lower while metals prices surged, marking the emergence of a new commodity regime, driven by divergent supply dynamics.  Looking ahead to 2026 this deviation is expected to continue as supply-constrained metals continue to beat glutted energy.   Speakers:   Natasha Kaneva, Head of Global Commodities Research Greg Shearer, Head of Base & Precious Metals Research Otar Dgebuadze, Natural Gas Research   This podcast was recorded on December 5, 2025. This communication is provided for information purposes only. Institutional clients can view the related report at https://www.jpmm.com/research/content/GPS-5143468-0 for more information; please visit www.jpmm.com/research/disclosures for important disclosures. © 2025 JPMorgan Chase & Co. All rights reserved. This material or any portion hereof may not be reprinted, sold or redistributed without the written consent of J.P. Morgan. It is strictly prohibited to use or share without prior written consent from J.P. Morgan any research material received from J.P. Morgan or an authorized third-party (“J.P. Morgan Data”) in any third-party artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems or models when such J.P. Morgan Data is accessible by a third-party. It is permissible to use J.P. Morgan Data for internal business purposes only in an AI system or model that protects the confidentiality of J.P. Morgan Data so as to prevent any and all access to or use of such J.P. Morgan Data by any third-party.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

 Before the year wraps up, take advantage of financial strategies that can save money and set you up for success. In this episode, Miguel Gonzalez, CRC, shares 5 important moves to make before December 31st. Cortburg Retirement Advisors is a boutique financial planning firm committed to helping you grow, protect, and preserve your assets from your first job to retirement. We specialize in wealth management, estate and tax planning, group retirement, employee benefits, insurance, and retirement planning to navigate any economic climate.Miguel Gonzalez, a Retirement Specialist with 20+ years of experience, offers expertise in retirement income planning, investment management, and retirement plan design. With an MBA from Columbia Business School, and professional experience with JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, and more, Miguel is a trusted advisor for his clients. #Cortburg #yearendchecklist #financialplanning #retirementplanning #smartmoney #FSAtips #taxplanning #budgetreview #financialcheckup #401kcontributions #holidaymoney #wealthbuilding #financialgoals #endofyearmoves #retirementstrategy #moneymoves #CortburgSpeaksRetirement #MiguelXGonzalez #financechecklist #financialhealth Welcome to Cortburg Speaks Retirement Podcast with Miguel Gonzalez, MBA, AIF®, CPFA®, CRC® CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO MIGUEL'S LATEST PODCAST FOLLOW US ON: YouTube->https://m.youtube.com/c/CORTBURGRETIREMENTADVISORS Facebook-> https://m.facebook.com/CortburgInc Twitter-> https://twitter.com/CortburgInc LinkedIn->https://www.linkedin.com/in/miguelxgonzalez/ Website: www.CortburgRetirement.com Email: Miguel@CortburgRetirement.com

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

High-profile business figures including Sergey Brin, Thomas Pritzker and Mortimer Zuckerman were issued subpoenas in March 2023 as part of a civil lawsuit from the U.S. Virgin Islands against JPMorgan Chase & Co.. The subpoenas sought documents and communications potentially tying these wealthy individuals to the bank's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein — a relationship the Virgin Islands alleged helped facilitate a sex-trafficking enterprise.The legal push signaled a broadening of the investigation's scope, moving beyond the bank and its former executives to probe the wider circle of elite clients and associates linked to Epstein. By pulling in Brin, Pritzker and Zuckerman, authorities aimed to uncover whether Epstein used wealth and connections — through financial referrals or shared networks — to sustain or conceal the trafficking operation, and to hold both institutions and individuals accountable for complicity.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The financial sector didn't just enable Jeffrey Epstein—they fortified him. For decades, elite institutions like JPMorgan Chase continued to do business with Epstein long after his 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor, ignoring internal warnings, compliance red flags, and credible allegations of abuse. High-ranking executives maintained close relationships, funneled vast sums through opaque accounts, and even joked about his grotesque proclivities in internal emails. Bankers helped him move millions across borders, granted him access to ultra-wealthy clients, and never asked the kind of questions they would demand from an average customer depositing a suspicious $10,000. These weren't oversights—they were decisions. Deliberate, profitable, and saturated with moral rot.At every turn, the financial institutions chose profit over principle. They ignored the trail of victims, the mountain of press coverage, and the glaring signs of criminality, all in exchange for Epstein's connections and capital. Even as civil suits piled up and survivors came forward, these firms were more concerned with protecting their reputations than cutting ties with a known predator. The result wasn't just a financial scandal—it was systemic complicity. The banks didn't just launder his money. They laundered his legitimacy, allowing him to continue operating as a global financier, when in truth he was running an empire built on exploitation and secrecy.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Harvard's decision to install Mary Erdoes — the longtime CEO of the asset and wealth-management arm of JPMorgan Chase & Co. — onto the board of its endowment manager comes at a particularly fraught moment. Recent unsealed documents and public reporting reveal that Erdoes maintained regular contact with Epstein while he was a client, despite numerous warnings and widely known allegations of criminal sexual misconduct. Many of those communications have been described as “highly personal” and show that even after Epstein's 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor, executives under Erdoes's supervision continued to handle his accounts — a decision that federal investigators now say reflects possible institutional complicity. With the broader scandal intensifying, Harvard's choice to elevate Erdoes — rather than distance the university from those links — reads as a tone-deaf move that prioritizes financial pedigree over moral accountability.In making that appointment, Harvard risks underestimating how the optics — not to mention the facts — will land with students, alumni, and the public at large. To many, the decision signals indifference to the victims of Epstein's crimes and raises serious doubts about Harvard's commitment to ethical oversight and transparency. By putting someone closely tied to Epstein's financial network in charge of stewarding the university's endowment, Harvard has exposed itself to charges of hypocrisy and moral failure — undermining trust at a time when institutions everywhere are being called to answer for their links to abuse and exploitation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Harvard Endowment Appoints 3 New Directors, Including JPMorgan Exec Who Managed Epstein's Bank Accounts | News | The Harvard Crimson

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this episode, Eloise Goulder speaks with Andrew Tyler, Global head of Market Intelligence, and Federico Manicardi, International head of the Market Intelligence at J.P. Morgan. They discuss strength in equity markets over 2025, from the macro backdrop to corporate earnings and central bank policy. They also explore the relative outperformance in EM, Europe and several APAC markets, as well as the respective drivers for these moves. Finally, they hone in on highest conviction opportunities for equities into year-end, plus key catalysts and risks to watch in the weeks ahead.    This episode was recorded on December 1, 2025.   The views expressed in this podcast may not necessarily reflect the views of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co and its affiliates (together “J.P. Morgan”), they are not the product of J.P. Morgan's Research Department and do not constitute a recommendation, advice, or an offer or a solicitation to buy or sell any security or financial instrument.  This podcast is intended for institutional and professional investors only and is not intended for retail investor use, it is provided for information purposes only. Referenced products and services in this podcast may not be suitable for you and may not be available in all jurisdictions.  J.P. Morgan may make markets and trade as principal in securities and other asset classes and financial products that may have been discussed.  For additional disclaimers and regulatory disclosures, please visit: www.jpmorgan.com/disclosures/salesandtradingdisclaimer. For the avoidance of doubt, opinions expressed by any external speakers are the personal views of those speakers and do not represent the views of J.P. Morgan. © 2025 JPMorgan Chase & Company. All rights reserved.

This episode features Daniel Stefaniak, Vice President Architect - Cybersecurity and Identity at JPMorgan Chase.With deep experience as an IT architect, consultant, and technical program manager, Daniel has helped design and deploy large-scale IAM and CIAM solutions that support millions of users. He is widely recognized for his expertise in Active Directory and Entra ID and for bringing clear, unfiltered insight into some of the industry's toughest identity challenges.In this episode, Daniel explains why attack path management is never a one-and-done effort, how to focus on the high-impact issues that matter most, and why success depends on dedicated ownership rather than tools alone.This is an honest and practical look at what it truly takes to understand and manage attack paths in modern identity environments.Guest Bio Experienced IT Architect, Consultant, and Technical Program Manager specializing in Active Directory and Entra ID (Azure AD). A recognized industry leader in Identity and Access Management (IAM) and cybersecurity, with extensive expertise designing and deploying large-scale cloud-based IAM and CIAM solutions supporting millions of users.Former Microsoft Program Manager, instrumental in driving technical content, readiness, and enterprise adoption of Azure AD. Proven ability to lead end-to-end project lifecycles, align security strategies with regulatory requirements, and design robust directory and identity federation solutions.Guest Quote " You cannot be an active directory admin or an architect owner of the service, and run an attack path management program on the side. You need a dedicated team to do it.”Time stamps 01:05 Meet Daniel Stefaniak: The IAM Guy 02:08 The Insanity of Attack Path Management 03:27 Challenges and Realities of Attack Path Management 07:57 Choosing the Right Tools 10:32 Implementing Effective Attack Path Management 12:50 Using OKRs in Tech Path 14:50 Team and Resource Requirements 16:20 Conclusion and Final ThoughtsSponsor The HIP Podcast is brought to you by Semperis, the leader in identity-driven cyber resilience for the hybrid enterprise. Trusted by the world's leading businesses, Semperis protects critical Active Directory environments from cyberattacks, ensuring rapid recovery and business continuity when every second counts. Visit semperis.com to learn more.Links Connect with Daniel on LinkedInLearn more about JPMorgan ChaseConnect with Sean on LinkedInDon't miss future episodesLearn more about Semperis

Harvard's decision to install Mary Erdoes — the longtime CEO of the asset and wealth-management arm of JPMorgan Chase & Co. — onto the board of its endowment manager comes at a particularly fraught moment. Recent unsealed documents and public reporting reveal that Erdoes maintained regular contact with Epstein while he was a client, despite numerous warnings and widely known allegations of criminal sexual misconduct. Many of those communications have been described as “highly personal” and show that even after Epstein's 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor, executives under Erdoes's supervision continued to handle his accounts — a decision that federal investigators now say reflects possible institutional complicity. With the broader scandal intensifying, Harvard's choice to elevate Erdoes — rather than distance the university from those links — reads as a tone-deaf move that prioritizes financial pedigree over moral accountability.In making that appointment, Harvard risks underestimating how the optics — not to mention the facts — will land with students, alumni, and the public at large. To many, the decision signals indifference to the victims of Epstein's crimes and raises serious doubts about Harvard's commitment to ethical oversight and transparency. By putting someone closely tied to Epstein's financial network in charge of stewarding the university's endowment, Harvard has exposed itself to charges of hypocrisy and moral failure — undermining trust at a time when institutions everywhere are being called to answer for their links to abuse and exploitation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Harvard Endowment Appoints 3 New Directors, Including JPMorgan Exec Who Managed Epstein's Bank Accounts | News | The Harvard CrimsonBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The financial sector didn't just enable Jeffrey Epstein—they fortified him. For decades, elite institutions like JPMorgan Chase continued to do business with Epstein long after his 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor, ignoring internal warnings, compliance red flags, and credible allegations of abuse. High-ranking executives maintained close relationships, funneled vast sums through opaque accounts, and even joked about his grotesque proclivities in internal emails. Bankers helped him move millions across borders, granted him access to ultra-wealthy clients, and never asked the kind of questions they would demand from an average customer depositing a suspicious $10,000. These weren't oversights—they were decisions. Deliberate, profitable, and saturated with moral rot.At every turn, the financial institutions chose profit over principle. They ignored the trail of victims, the mountain of press coverage, and the glaring signs of criminality, all in exchange for Epstein's connections and capital. Even as civil suits piled up and survivors came forward, these firms were more concerned with protecting their reputations than cutting ties with a known predator. The result wasn't just a financial scandal—it was systemic complicity. The banks didn't just launder his money. They laundered his legitimacy, allowing him to continue operating as a global financier, when in truth he was running an empire built on exploitation and secrecy.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

High-profile business figures including Sergey Brin, Thomas Pritzker and Mortimer Zuckerman were issued subpoenas in March 2023 as part of a civil lawsuit from the U.S. Virgin Islands against JPMorgan Chase & Co.. The subpoenas sought documents and communications potentially tying these wealthy individuals to the bank's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein — a relationship the Virgin Islands alleged helped facilitate a sex-trafficking enterprise.The legal push signaled a broadening of the investigation's scope, moving beyond the bank and its former executives to probe the wider circle of elite clients and associates linked to Epstein. By pulling in Brin, Pritzker and Zuckerman, authorities aimed to uncover whether Epstein used wealth and connections — through financial referrals or shared networks — to sustain or conceal the trafficking operation, and to hold both institutions and individuals accountable for complicity.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Harvard's decision to install Mary Erdoes — the longtime CEO of the asset and wealth-management arm of JPMorgan Chase & Co. — onto the board of its endowment manager comes at a particularly fraught moment. Recent unsealed documents and public reporting reveal that Erdoes maintained regular contact with Epstein while he was a client, despite numerous warnings and widely known allegations of criminal sexual misconduct. Many of those communications have been described as “highly personal” and show that even after Epstein's 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor, executives under Erdoes's supervision continued to handle his accounts — a decision that federal investigators now say reflects possible institutional complicity. With the broader scandal intensifying, Harvard's choice to elevate Erdoes — rather than distance the university from those links — reads as a tone-deaf move that prioritizes financial pedigree over moral accountability.In making that appointment, Harvard risks underestimating how the optics — not to mention the facts — will land with students, alumni, and the public at large. To many, the decision signals indifference to the victims of Epstein's crimes and raises serious doubts about Harvard's commitment to ethical oversight and transparency. By putting someone closely tied to Epstein's financial network in charge of stewarding the university's endowment, Harvard has exposed itself to charges of hypocrisy and moral failure — undermining trust at a time when institutions everywhere are being called to answer for their links to abuse and exploitation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Harvard Endowment Appoints 3 New Directors, Including JPMorgan Exec Who Managed Epstein's Bank Accounts | News | The Harvard CrimsonBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The financial sector didn't just enable Jeffrey Epstein—they fortified him. For decades, elite institutions like JPMorgan Chase continued to do business with Epstein long after his 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor, ignoring internal warnings, compliance red flags, and credible allegations of abuse. High-ranking executives maintained close relationships, funneled vast sums through opaque accounts, and even joked about his grotesque proclivities in internal emails. Bankers helped him move millions across borders, granted him access to ultra-wealthy clients, and never asked the kind of questions they would demand from an average customer depositing a suspicious $10,000. These weren't oversights—they were decisions. Deliberate, profitable, and saturated with moral rot.At every turn, the financial institutions chose profit over principle. They ignored the trail of victims, the mountain of press coverage, and the glaring signs of criminality, all in exchange for Epstein's connections and capital. Even as civil suits piled up and survivors came forward, these firms were more concerned with protecting their reputations than cutting ties with a known predator. The result wasn't just a financial scandal—it was systemic complicity. The banks didn't just launder his money. They laundered his legitimacy, allowing him to continue operating as a global financier, when in truth he was running an empire built on exploitation and secrecy.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In recent months, a growing chorus of legislators has publicly demanded that major banks — including JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, and Bank of New York Mellon — be held accountable for allegedly facilitating Epstein's sex-trafficking operation through negligent or deliberately under-reported financial activity. A high-profile memorandum released by Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, lays out evidence that JPMorgan severely under-reported “suspicious activity” on Epstein's accounts for years — then suddenly flagged over a billion dollars in transfers only after his 2019 arrest and death. Many lawmakers argue this discrepancy goes beyond careless bookkeeping and points to systemic compliance failures or even criminal complicity, especially given that senior banking executives remained personally involved in Epstein's account oversight.Against this backdrop, Congressional oversight committees have issued subpoenas to banks for financial records tied to Epstein. James Comer, chair of the House Oversight Committee, has demanded full transparency and urged federal prosecutors to open criminal investigations, not only into bank institutions but into individuals who may have knowingly enabled or covered up Epstein's criminal activity. Some lawmakers say that unless those responsible face real consequences — indictments, prosecutions, or heavy penalties — justice for survivors will remain incomplete. There is also growing pressure for regulators to tighten financial-institution oversight and to re-examine how wealthy, high-risk clients are managed by private banking arms.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:US regulators ‘taking seriously' allegations of bankers' support for Epstein | Banking | The Guardian

In recent months, a growing chorus of legislators has publicly demanded that major banks — including JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, and Bank of New York Mellon — be held accountable for allegedly facilitating Epstein's sex-trafficking operation through negligent or deliberately under-reported financial activity. A high-profile memorandum released by Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, lays out evidence that JPMorgan severely under-reported “suspicious activity” on Epstein's accounts for years — then suddenly flagged over a billion dollars in transfers only after his 2019 arrest and death. Many lawmakers argue this discrepancy goes beyond careless bookkeeping and points to systemic compliance failures or even criminal complicity, especially given that senior banking executives remained personally involved in Epstein's account oversight.Against this backdrop, Congressional oversight committees have issued subpoenas to banks for financial records tied to Epstein. James Comer, chair of the House Oversight Committee, has demanded full transparency and urged federal prosecutors to open criminal investigations, not only into bank institutions but into individuals who may have knowingly enabled or covered up Epstein's criminal activity. Some lawmakers say that unless those responsible face real consequences — indictments, prosecutions, or heavy penalties — justice for survivors will remain incomplete. There is also growing pressure for regulators to tighten financial-institution oversight and to re-examine how wealthy, high-risk clients are managed by private banking arms.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:US regulators ‘taking seriously' allegations of bankers' support for Epstein | Banking | The GuardianBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

High-profile business figures including Sergey Brin, Thomas Pritzker and Mortimer Zuckerman were issued subpoenas in March 2023 as part of a civil lawsuit from the U.S. Virgin Islands against JPMorgan Chase & Co.. The subpoenas sought documents and communications potentially tying these wealthy individuals to the bank's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein — a relationship the Virgin Islands alleged helped facilitate a sex-trafficking enterprise.The legal push signaled a broadening of the investigation's scope, moving beyond the bank and its former executives to probe the wider circle of elite clients and associates linked to Epstein. By pulling in Brin, Pritzker and Zuckerman, authorities aimed to uncover whether Epstein used wealth and connections — through financial referrals or shared networks — to sustain or conceal the trafficking operation, and to hold both institutions and individuals accountable for complicity.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

FX vol remains subdued into 2026 on resilient US growth and low central bank activity, but starting levels limit further downside. Policy events in 1Q26 could test this regime, making cheap forward vols over 1Q attractive as portfolio hedges. Beyond that, FXO trade recommendations focus on European growth, Antipodean revival, debasement, carry via options, EUR skew harvesting, selling x-corrs, and leveraging the macro backdrop for efficiency in x-asset directionals.   Speakers Arindam Sandilya, Global FX Strategy Ladislav Jankovic, Global FX Strategy Juan Duran-Vara, Global FX Strategy Sanjana Shinde, Global FX Strategy   This podcast was recorded on 28 November 2025. This communication is provided for information purposes only. Institutional clients can view the related report at https://www.jpmm.com/research/content/GPS-5125942-0 for more information; please visit www.jpmm.com/research/disclosures for important disclosures. © 2025 JPMorgan Chase & Co. All rights reserved. This material or any portion hereof may not be reprinted, sold or redistributed without the written consent of J.P. Morgan. It is strictly prohibited to use or share without prior written consent from J.P. Morgan any research material received from J.P. Morgan or an authorized third-party (“J.P. Morgan Data”) in any third-party artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems or models when such J.P. Morgan Data is accessible by a third-party. It is permissible to use J.P. Morgan Data for internal business purposes only in an AI system or model that protects the confidentiality of J.P. Morgan Data so as to prevent any and all access to or use of such J.P. Morgan Data by any third-party.        

The Global FX Strategy team delves into the year-ahead currency outlook across macro, systematic and derivative dimensions.   Speakers Meera Chandan, Global FX Strategy Arindam Sandilya, Global FX Strategy Anezka Christovova, Global FX Strategy  Antonin Delair, Global FX Strategy  Ben Jarman, Global FX Strategy  Patrick Locke, Global FX Strategy James Nelligan, Global FX Strategy  Kunj Padh, Global FX Strategy Octavia Popescu, Global FX Strategy Ikue Saito, Global FX Strategy Junya Tanase, Global FX Strategy   This podcast was recorded on 28 November 2025. This communication is provided for information purposes only. Institutional clients can view the related report at https://www.jpmm.com/research/content/GPS-5135264-0 for more information; please visit www.jpmm.com/research/disclosures for important disclosures. © 2025 JPMorgan Chase & Co. All rights reserved. This material or any portion hereof may not be reprinted, sold or redistributed without the written consent of J.P. Morgan. It is strictly prohibited to use or share without prior written consent from J.P. Morgan any research material received from J.P. Morgan or an authorized third-party (“J.P. Morgan Data”) in any third-party artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems or models when such J.P. Morgan Data is accessible by a third-party. It is permissible to use J.P. Morgan Data for internal business purposes only in an AI system or model that protects the confidentiality of J.P. Morgan Data so as to prevent any and all access to or use of such J.P. Morgan Data by any third-party.        

Ken Shreve and Ed Carson analyze Friday's market action and discuss key stocks to watch on Stock Market Today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's blockchain and cryptocurrency news  Ark Invest buys the dip on crypto stocks Bitcoin miner CleanSpark reports record revenue for FY 2025 amid broader AI shift South Korea's KakaoBank advances stablecoin initiative JPMorgan builds product off of IBIT. JPMorgan Chase shuts ShapeShift employee's business account, says his personal account will be next. ###Gemini Card Disclosure: The Gemini Credit Card is issued by WebBank. In order to qualify for the $200 crypto intro onus, you must spend $3,000 in your first 90 days. Terms Apply. Some exclusions apply to instant rewards in which rewards are deposited when the transaction posts. This content is not investment advice and trading crypto involves risk. For more details on rates, fees, and other cost information, see Rates & Fees. The Gemini Credit Card may not be used to make gambling-related purchases.  ### For 40% off your order, head to Udacity.com/DCR and use code DCR. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sen. Wyden calls out Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent for blocking the release key information related to Jeffrey Epstein. Dina Doll discusses this, as well as Wyden's newly released report calling for an investigation into JPMorgan Chase's financial dealings with Epstein. True Classic: Head to TrueClassic.com/misstrial to grab the perfect gift for everyone on your list. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered

 Holiday joy shouldn't come with a financial hangover. In this episode, Miguel Gonzalez, CRC, shares practical ways to stick to a holiday budget, avoid debt, and enjoy the season stress-free. Cortburg Retirement Advisors is a boutique financial planning firm committed to helping you grow, protect, and preserve your assets from your first job to retirement. We specialize in wealth management, estate and tax planning, group retirement, employee benefits, insurance, and retirement planning to navigate any economic climate.Miguel Gonzalez, a Retirement Specialist with 20+ years of experience, offers expertise in retirement income planning, investment management, and retirement plan design. With an MBA from Columbia Business School, and professional experience with JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, and more, Miguel is a trusted advisor for his clients. #Cortburg #holidaybudget #holidayplanning #holidaydebt #smartspending #budgetingtips #retirementplanning #financialfreedom #CortburgSpeaksRetirement #MiguelXGonzalez #moneymindset #seasonalspending #holidaystress #debtfreeholidays #cashonlychallenge #holidaygifts #budgetfriendly #personalfinance #financialwellness #financialplanning Welcome to Cortburg Speaks Retirement Podcast with Miguel Gonzalez, MBA, AIF®, CPFA®, CRC® CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO MIGUEL'S LATEST PODCAST FOLLOW US ON: YouTube->https://m.youtube.com/c/CORTBURGRETIREMENTADVISORS Facebook-> https://m.facebook.com/CortburgInc Twitter-> https://twitter.com/CortburgInc LinkedIn->https://www.linkedin.com/in/miguelxgonzalez/ Website: www.CortburgRetirement.com Email: Miguel@CortburgRetirement.com

Friday, November 21st, 2025Today, Donald Trump calls for the execution of members of Congress who served in the military after a public service announcement to the military; the government's case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia could be falling apart after an evidentiary hearing; details about an investigation into the finances of Jeffrey Epstein expose JP Morgan Chase; the retailer Target may have hit rock bottom; the House unanimously passes a bill to strip the Senate phone investigations provision from the funding bill; the DOJ drops charges against a woman they claim assaulted a federal agent; Republican Dan Crenshaw has been hit with an international travel ban after a drinking incident; the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has blocked the release of detainees from the Broadview ICE facility pending a December hearing; a federal judge rules the deployment of the National Guard to DC was illegal; today is transgender day of remembrance; and Allison and Dana Deliver your Good News.Thank You, HomeChefFor a limited time, get  50% off and free shipping for your first box PLUS free dessert for life!  HomeChef.com/DAILYBEANS.  Must be an active subscriber to receive free dessert.Thank You, Naked WinesTo get 6 bottles of wine for $39.99, head to nakedwines.com/DAILYBEANS and use code DAILYBEANS for both the code and password.Guest: John FugelsangTell Me Everything - John Fugelsang, The John Fugelsang Podcast, John Fugelsang - Substack, @johnfugelsang.bsky.social - Bluesky, @JohnFugelsang -TwitterSeparation of Church and Hate by John Fugelsang - OUT NOW!JOHN FUGELSANG BOOK TOUR PPV SPECIALStoriesHouse unanimously passes bill to strip Senate phone investigations provision from funding bill | ABC NewsFederal prosecutors move to dismiss charges against Chicago woman shot by Border Patrol | NBC NewsAppeals court declines to lift order blocking Trump from deploying National Guard in Illinois, finding scant evidence of 'rebellion' | ABC NewsJudge rules Trump's DC National Guard deployment was illegal | POLITICOTransgender Day of Remembrance (TDOR) | GLAADTrump Calls Democrats' Military Video ‘Seditious Behavior, Punishable by Death' | The New York TimesWyden Presses for Investigation Into JPMorgan Chase and Epstein | The New York TimesHouse Republican hit with international travel ban after drinking incident | Raw StoryTarget may have hit rock bottom | CNN Business Good TroubleThe Dept. of Education has a proposal out that will deem nursing not a "skilled profession." Among the consequences of this "gem" are the fact that nursing education past the BSN level will no longer be eligible for student loans(!!). Congressional reps didn't even know this was happening - Let's make them aware! With a shortage of 300,000 nurses right now, and a need for more Nurse Practitioners, Clinical Nurse Specialists, Nurse Midwives, Nurse Anesthetists (sorry Dana...that one can be a tongue twister), and nurse leaders & researchers, NURSES ARE A SKILLED PROFESSION. We need to be eligible for student loans to learn those skills. Here is the bill info URL: AACN Alarmed Over Department of Education's Proposed Limitation of Student Loan Access for Nursing→Contacting U.S. Senators Find Your Representative | house.gov→ FLARE USA -  Join Cliff Cash, Dropkick Murphy's, Harry Dunn, Jessica Denson - November 20,21,22 - Washington DC - RemoveTheRegime**Red, Wine and Blue has a very active North Carolina Community Trouble Nation→Contacting U.S. Senators Find Your Representative | house.gov**Mutual Aid Relief Fund, Mutual Aid Hub, GiveDirectly.org/snap**Group Directory - The Visibility Brigade: Resistance is Possible**Vote Yes 836 - Oklahoma is gathering signatures**How to Organize a Bearing Witness Standout**Indiana teacher snitch portal - Eyes on Education**Find Your Representative | house.gov, Contacting U.S. SenatorsFrom The Good NewsRemoveTheRegime.com - November 20,21,22 - Washington DCAdopt Clementine  - silverliningsrescueranch.org/adopt  - Central ORAACN Alarmed Over Department of Education's Proposed Limitation of Student Loan Access for Nursingthespayceproject.rallyup.com/elcentrodogs/Campaign/DetailsPostFire.orgStop LoveMore RanchOur Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - Donate, MSW Media, Blue Wave CA Victory Fund | ActBlue, WhistleblowerAid.org/beansFederal workers - email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - The 2025 Out100, BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comMore from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Our Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - DonateMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueWhistleblowerAid.org/beansFederal workers - feel free to email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comCheck out more from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackShare your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good TroubleHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?The Daily Beans | SupercastThe Daily Beans & Mueller, She Wrote | PatreonThe Daily Beans | Apple Podcasts Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

A.M. Edition for Nov. 21. Asian semiconductor stocks tumbled, a day after Nvidia's gains were erased on U.S. markets as investors continue to question AI valuations. Plus, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Citigroup pull out of a planned $20 billion bailout to Argentina that was pushed by the Trump administration. And WSJ chief China correspondent Lingling Wei details how China is ramping up a new pressure campaign on Taiwan. Kate Bullivant hosts.Sign up for the WSJ's free What's News newsletter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices