Seek Value Now
Go back

Head to Head: JPM vs. BAC

Head to Head: JPM vs. BAC

For ten of fourteen years BAC was the better holding. One structural inflection in 2022-2023 changed that. Here’s why I think it sticks.

Disclosure: I own both JPM and BAC. I bought both in early 2012 at equal weight. Fourteen years later, JPM is approximately twice the size of BAC in my portfolio — the result of letting both banks compound without rebalancing, especially through the last four years. Fresh capital I add to US large-cap banking today goes to JPM. This is not a recommendation to buy or sell either security. Full disclaimer at the bottom.

The honest history first

Most “JPM is the best bank in America” pieces start with Jamie Dimon’s record and work backwards from there. I want to start with the part those pieces don’t tell you.

For ten of the last fourteen years, BAC was actually the better-performing holding.

Here’s the chart of both since I bought them in April 2012:

[CHART 14Y]

The blue line is BAC. The candles are JPM. BAC sits above JPM for almost the entire chart — from 2013 through about late 2023. By the totals, JPM finishes at +657% and BAC at +593%. That’s only ~64 percentage points of difference over fourteen years — barely half a percentage point per year of compounded outperformance. If you’d bought equal weight in 2012 and let it ride, BAC would have looked like the better pick for most of the holding period.

Then something changed. Here’s the same comparison over the last five years:

[CHART 5Y]

JPM +120% vs BAC +45% — JPM nearly tripled BAC’s return. That gap is where the 2:1 weighting in my portfolio came from. I didn’t trade my way into it; I let two banks operate, and one decisively outran the other starting around 2022.

So the question for this piece — and the question I had to answer for my own capital — is: why did the inflection happen, and is it durable?

The short version

The reason BAC was the better holding from 2012-2021 was largely irrelevant to the underlying business quality. It was a function of two things: starting valuation (BAC was deeply discounted post-Countrywide, mean-reverting upward) and a rate regime (zero-rate / QE) that masked the operational differences between the two banks. Underneath that surface, JPM was always earning meaningfully more on tangible equity. The market just wasn’t paying for the gap.

Two things in 2022-2023 ended that:

  1. The rate cycle exposed BAC’s duration mistake. BAC had bought tens of billions of long-duration securities at zero-rate carry. When rates normalized, those securities took $131 billion in peak unrealized losses — the largest paper losses of any US bank. JPM didn’t make the same mistake.
  2. The post-zero-rate environment favored JPM’s fee mix and capital-markets franchise much more than BAC’s deposit-and-lend model. What looked like undifferentiated banking in the QE era turned out to be two materially different businesses when capital markets reactivated and rate-sensitive carry trades stopped subsidizing weaker asset-liability management.

The market started pricing the operational gap that had been there all along. That gap is what the next decade compounds. Fresh money goes to JPM, not BAC, because that pricing-up is still earned, not stretched.

The two businesses today

JPMorgan Chase (JPM) — $325 · market cap ~$871B The largest US bank by assets and market cap. Diversified across commercial banking, investment banking, asset & wealth management, consumer banking, and global markets. Q1 2026 ROTCE of 23%. Jamie Dimon has been CEO since 2005.

Bank of America (BAC) — $56 · market cap ~$399B The second-largest US bank. More retail-deposit-anchored, more US-centric, with the Merrill Lynch wealth franchise and a credible (but smaller-scale) investment bank. Q1 2026 ROTCE of 16%. Brian Moynihan has been CEO since 2010.

Both are well-capitalized, profitable, and shareholder-friendly. The differences are about degree and mix, not kind. The “Wall Street’s Bank vs. Main Street’s Bank” frame is rhetorical — BAC has plenty of Wall Street exposure through Merrill and BofA Securities; JPM has a massive Main Street consumer bank. The honest comparison is about which mix earns more, more reliably.

The side-by-side that matters

What the market is paying (June 2026):

What the businesses are earning:

Capital return (announced mid-2025):

The asymmetry you don’t see on the front page:

The structural question — durable or cyclical?

The bull case for BAC says everything I’ve described mean-reverts. Rates normalize, the HTM losses run off as securities mature at par, NII expands faster than JPM’s diversified mix, the multiple gap compresses. It’s a coherent thesis. The honest reply has two parts.

First, the ROTCE gap isn’t a rate-cycle artifact. Look at the four-year average: JPM ~21% vs BAC ~11%. Even in BAC’s best year (2025) at 14%, JPM was at ~21-22%. Even with BAC’s Q1 2026 jump to 16% — the strongest quarter of Moynihan’s tenure — JPM was at 23%. The gap has narrowed, but it has not closed. It has persisted across the zero-rate era, the rate-hike cycle, the early-rate-cut phase, and now the soft-landing phase. It’s an operational gap, not a macro one.

Second, the duration mistake matters as evidence about management, not just as a one-time loss. BAC’s HTM unrealized losses will unwind. The harder question is why was that bet made in the first place? In a world where the Fed had been telegraphing eventual rate normalization since 2021, BAC’s asset-liability team kept extending duration. JPM, with the same set of facts available, didn’t. That decision-making gap doesn’t run off with the securities portfolio. It’s a fact about how the two banks think about risk.

Put differently: even if the bull case for BAC is right about mean reversion, the bull case implies BAC ROTCE peaks around the 16-18% management target while JPM stays comfortably above 20%. The valuation gap (JPM at 1.6x BAC’s P/TBV) is approximately what you’d pay for the structural ROTCE differential. The market isn’t expensive on JPM. It’s correctly priced.

Valuation — why “cheaper” isn’t “cheap”

The retail value-investor temptation when looking at this matchup is to buy BAC because JPM is “expensive” at 2.99x P/TBV vs BAC’s 1.83x. That math is wrong in two steps.

Step one — multiple-to-quality. JPM at 2.99x P/TBV earning 22-23% ROTCE is yielding roughly 7.5% on price. BAC at 1.83x P/TBV earning 14-16% ROTCE is yielding roughly 8.0% on price. Comparable earnings yields, once you adjust for the quality differential. JPM isn’t actually expensive — it’s correctly priced for what it earns.

Step two — the compounding asymmetry. A bank earning 22% on equity reinvests at 22%. A bank earning 11% reinvests at 11%. Over ten years that’s the difference between roughly 7.3x book value compounded and 2.8x compounded. Even paying 1.6x more for the higher-ROTCE bank up front, you finish ahead. Cheaper isn’t value when the cheaper business compounds slower.

This is the same shape as the AAPL/MSFT and ORLY/AZO arguments before it. The premium on the better-quality business is almost always smaller than the gap in compounding capacity would imply. That’s the SVN through-line: the best businesses are rarely the cheapest stocks, and the cheapest stocks are rarely the best businesses.

The capital return angle

This is where the structural-inflection thesis cashes out in real shareholder cash.

In 2025, the Fed cut JPM’s stress capital buffer from 3.3% to 2.5% — a meaningful regulatory unlock. The freed capital is what funds the new $50B buyback (effective July 2025) on top of the raised dividend. The combined return-of-capital capacity for JPM is approximately 8-9% of market cap per year. That is enormous for a bank trading at 15.6x earnings.

BAC’s $40B buyback is the largest in the bank’s history — and it’s still meaningfully smaller than JPM’s authorization despite BAC having ~46% of JPM’s market cap. On a market-cap-relative basis, JPM’s annual return capacity is about 30% higher than BAC’s. This isn’t a minor footnote. It’s the mechanical reason JPM’s per-share compounding tends to outrun BAC’s, holding everything else constant.

The bear case for JPM (the honest one)

If you’re going to back JPM, you need to know how the thesis would be wrong. Three real risks.

Succession. Jamie Dimon has been CEO since 2005. He has no announced step-down date as of mid-2026, but the transition has effectively started. Daniel Pinto — Dimon’s right hand for seven years — retired in early 2026. Jennifer Piepszak moved into the COO role and has explicitly ruled herself out of the top job. The remaining internal candidates are Marianne Lake, Mary Erdoes, and Troy Rohrbaugh, and the board has openly signaled it may weigh external candidates as well. JPM’s CFO publicly insists succession planning is “strong as ever,” but the fact that externals are being weighed is unusual and arguably suggests less internal confidence than the “deep bench” narrative implies. Some of JPM’s premium is the Dimon-personality premium. Probably 5-15% of the multiple. When he leaves, that part of the premium tests itself.

Mean reversion on capital markets. 2024-2025 were strong years for IB fees and trading revenue. Q1 2026 set new records (JPM markets revenue hit $11.6B, IB fees up 28%). If the capital-markets environment normalizes, JPM’s earnings step down faster than BAC’s do. A piece written at peak-IB conditions risks anchoring on cyclical highs.

G-SIB regulatory overhang. JPM sits at the highest G-SIB capital bucket. Basel III endgame, whenever it lands in final form, will be more punitive for JPM than for BAC. Capital ratios pinch returns.

The fair answer to all three: yes, real, but BAC has its own versions. Moynihan succession will eventually be a question. BAC’s duration exposure is still on the books and unwinds slowly. The 2023 regional bank stress hit BAC’s market perception harder than JPM’s, and that overhang hasn’t fully cleared. The asymmetry of bear cases is real but not dispositive.

The conviction climax

The reason BAC stays in the portfolio is that I’m not predicting the next decade. The reason fresh dollars go to JPM is that two decades of decisions through three crises tell me which one of these two managements I’d trust with all of my US-bank exposure if I had to pick one.

In 2008, JPM was the bank that bought Bear Stearns and WaMu under FDIC protection — adding scale and franchise during the panic. BAC was the bank that bought Countrywide and Merrill in deals that nearly broke it.

In 2020, both banks built reserves and came through COVID intact. Less differentiation here.

In 2023, when Silicon Valley Bank failed and dragged regional banking into a confidence crisis, JPM acquired First Republic at a steal under FDIC. BAC was the bank revealing $130B in paper losses on long-duration securities — losses that didn’t kill the bank but did the work of telling the market exactly what kind of asset-liability mistake management was capable of making.

What’s striking about the JPM record across all three crises isn’t what management did. It’s what management didn’t do. Dimon didn’t reach for duration when carry was tempting in 2020-2021. Didn’t take the bet-the-bank acquisition in 2008 when distressed-asset prices were tempting and counterparties were desperate. Didn’t chase fintech with bad acquisitions during the 2021 frenzy. The discipline shows up in the multi-decade ROTCE record because the absence of mistakes is itself a real business advantage.

The 2:1 weighting in my portfolio is what 14 years of holding produced. Fresh money keeps going to JPM because I trust the institutional version of that record — the systems, the bench, the culture, the risk management — to persist past Dimon, more than I trust any other US bank’s management to develop something similar from a standing start.

I could be wrong about that. If JPM’s ROTCE drops materially in the 12-18 months after Dimon fully steps back without an obvious external cause, the equal-weight starting bet was the right one and I’d reweight back toward parity. That’s the most important read I’ll make on US banking this decade.

Until then, fresh money to JPM.

Expression ladder

My positioning

I bought JPM and BAC in April 2012 at equal weight. I have not added to BAC since 2014. I have added to JPM intermittently across the years, but the 2:1 ratio in my portfolio today is more drift than rebalancing. The fresh dollar I add this week goes to JPM.

I’ve held both through 2018 (yield-curve flattening worries), 2020 (COVID), 2022 (rate hikes), and 2023 (the SVB-driven regional bank confidence crisis that pulled both names down hard for a quarter). The conviction in this piece is grounded in what those 14 years felt like as an owner, not just in what the numbers say in hindsight.

Where am I wrong? The Dimon-personality premium is the obvious place. If you have a stronger view on what happens to JPM’s ROTCE and multiple in the 12-18 months after Dimon’s full step-down, I’d genuinely like to hear it in the comments. That’s the variable I have the least confidence in.

Subscribe on Substack (free)

Coming Friday, ~1 PM EST — “Money Basics: What a dividend is actually telling you” — the ex-dividend mechanic, the historical context, the tax wedge, and how to read a payout as a signal about management’s view of their own runway. Subscribe to get it in your inbox.

Seek Value Now is published for educational and informational purposes only and is not investment advice. I may hold positions in the securities discussed. Do your own research before investing. — HG

Share this post:
Share this post on XShare this post on LinkedinShare this post on FacebookShare this post via email
Previous Post
Money Basics: What a dividend is actually telling you
Next Post
Head to Head: ORLY vs. AZO