JAMIE DIMON

If the economy grows, housing gets better, quicker.

All businesses tend to pass costs onto customers.

JP Morgan always has higher capital liquidity, that is partially to make up for mistakes and problems and obviously it's a tough economy. We support an oversight committee, we supported some of the compensation, new compensation rules, though we already follow most of them. We support a lot of it.

The term 'too big to fail' must be excised from our vocabulary.

You read constantly that banks are lobbying regulators and elected officials as if this is inappropriate. We don't look at it that way.

The real story in housing will be a recovery in the economy that will drive a recovery in housing, When people are working, when there are more jobs, more households forming and people go back to buying cars, they're going to want their apartments and homes. And that's when you'll start to see a recovery in home prices.

If the government wants to do social policy, it should not be done in a quasi-public company. If you have a mortgage guarantee company which is done by the U.S. government, it should be guaranteed by the originators, i.e., the shareholder.

Companies that grow for the sake of growth or that expand into areas outside their core business strategy often stumble. On the other hand, companies that build scale for the benefit of their customers and shareholders more often succeed over time.

Scale can create value for shareholders; for consumers, who are beneficiaries of better products, delivered more quickly and at less cost; for the businesses that are our customers; and for the economy as a whole.

We support too big to fail. We want the government to be able to take down a big bank like JP Morgan and it could be done. We think Dodd-Frank, which we supported parts of, gave the FDIC the authority to take down a big bank.

Capping the size of American banks won't eliminate the needs of big businesses; it will force them to turn to foreign banks that won't face the same restrictions.

It is vital for officials and regulators to have input from people within our businesses who understand the intricacies of how financial markets operate and the consequences of certain policy decisions.

You can design a mortgage system that is different without a Fannie and Freddie, but there are principles you have to have, to have a good system.

Walk into a Chase branch and we can give you so much quicker, better and faster. Like Wal-Mart.

It's good for America when the rest of the world grows, because you can sell more to the rest of the world.

While legislation obviously is political, we now have allowed regulation to become politicized, which we believe will likely lead to some bad outcomes.

Economies of scale are a good thing. If we didn't have them, we'd still be living in tents and eating buffalo.

You cannot prove this in real time, but when economists 20 years from now write a book on the recovery, it may well be entitled, 'It could have been much better.'

I have gotten disturbed at... some of the Democrats' anti-business behavior, the sentiment, the attacks on work ethic and successful people. I think it's very counter-productive.

We are totally open kimono with regulators.

No one can forecast the economy with certainty.

When the government gets involved in pricing, I don't think it's the right way to look at a business.

If business doesn't thrive, it hurts America. We need improved relations, more collaboration, more thought and more consistency as we go about trying to make sure we have the best country in the world. Not scapegoating and finger-pointing.

I am struck that so many of our leaders in the U.S. forget how strong our country can be.

The United States has the best, deepest, widest, and most transparent capital markets in the world which give you, the investor, the ability to buy and sell large amounts at very cheap prices. That is a good thing.