US banks have a lot riding on the outcome of Election Day even if they’re not 100% sure how either candidate might treat their industry.
The “knee-jerk reaction,” according to KBW analyst Chris McGratty, is that a Donald Trump victory will mean a return to looser regulation of banks and more leniency in approving the sort of corporate mergers that produce big profits for Wall Street giants.
A Kamala Harris win, on the other hand, may mean that a more aggressive period of overseeing the nation’s largest financial institutions under President Joe Biden will continue.
Screens show the presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris on Sept. 10. REUTERS/Adam Gray ·REUTERS / Reuters
“In my investor conversations, it definitely feels like people are pricing in Trump,” McGratty told Yahoo Finance. “So initially, if the election goes to Harris I would think banks would sell off,” he added.
The country’s largest lenders have had a great year thanks to the economy’s resilience during a period of elevated interest rates and a rebound in their investment banking and trading operations. The hope is next year could also turn out well, if lending and Wall Street dealmaking churn higher while interest rates fall.
Advertisement
An index tracking 24 of the largest domestically chartered US commercial banks (^BKX) is up 27% so far this year, outperforming the broader financial sector and major stock indexes.
Those other indexes for the financial sector (XLF), Nasdaq Composite (^IXIC), S&P 500 (^GSPC) are up 24%, 21% and 20%, respectively.
The consensus among industry observers is that a Trump White House might be more favorable for a run-up in financial stocks. After all, bank stocks rose 20% following the three months after Trump was elected in 2016.
But the challenge for bank executives as they assess the impact of a new president is that neither Trump or Harris have said much about how they want Washington to oversee the biggest banks in the US.
So instead their track records have largely spoken for them.
Advertisement
The Trump administration of last decade delivered a big corporate tax cut, and it also rolled back some big bank rules that were imposed in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.
Harris, on the other hand, has touted her clash with big banks when she was California’s attorney general as an example of her willingness to take on powerful interests.
One big unknown is what either administration would do with a new set of controversial capital rules proposed by top bank regulators that would require lenders to set aside greater buffers for future losses.
The requirements are based on an international set of capital requirements known as Basel III imposed in the decade following the 2008 financial crisis.
Advertisement
Banks have been fighting this US proposal for the last year in an aggressive public campaign and even dropped hints about suing regulators if they don’t get their way.
They won a big victory in September when some regulators said they would water down those requirements. But not all regulators appear to be on board with that plan, putting the final version in doubt.
Some in the industry expect regulators to scrap the proposal if Trump wins.
“If you’re looking at how Trump views the world, I think you see less cooperation with international standard setters,” Allen Puwalski, chief investment officer at Cybiont Capital, told Yahoo Finance.
“And I think you see the US back out of Basel III.”
Advertisement
And a Harris win means the proposal for bank capital increases likely won’t “change that much,” according to Ian Katz, a managing director at Capital Alpha Partners.
“If Harris wins, I expect regulators to sit down to reassess the proposal and try to move forward,” he added.
Federal Reserve vice chair for supervision Michael Barr, one of the architects of new proposed capital rules for big banks. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque ·REUTERS / Reuters
But Katz is also quick to point out even in a Trump win, a more friendly regulatory climate for the biggest lenders can’t be assured and it certainly won’t be touted.
“You can’t assume that every Republican these days is going to do favors for the largest banks,” he added.
KBW predicts that on day one a Trump administration could make as much as eight leadership changes at federal regulatory agencies that oversee different corners of the financial services industry.
That includes the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Securities and Exchange Commission and potentially even the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, if Biden nominee Christy Goldsmith Romero isn’t confirmed by the end of the year.
Advertisement
New leaders would also take over the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission, which would likely make it easier for giant companies to merge without running afoul of antitrust concerns.
KBW expects significant change at the Federal Reserve in 2026, when the chairmanship of the Fed’s Jerome Powell ends.
What is perhaps even more relevant for the banking industry is that 2026 is also the end of a term for Michael Barr as vice chair of supervision. Barr is the architect of the new bank capital rules and one of the industry’s chief antagonists.
The Washington Post has reported that bank executives and former Fed officials expect Trump to demote Barr, who was a Joe Biden appointee and a Treasury official during the Barack Obama era.
It is not known if Trump would have the legal power to make such a move, the Post reported.
Advertisement
Some big bank executives are clearly not fans of the current Biden-era regulators.
JPMorgan Chase (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon this past week called a raft of regulatory proposals from his overseers “an onslaught,” criticized CFPB director Rohit Chopra, and made it clear the industry is willing to push back on new rules in court.
“It’s time to fight back,” Dimon said while speaking at an American Bankers Association convention in New York City. “I’ve had it with this sh*t.”
JPMorgan Chase CEO and Chairman Jamie Dimon gestures as he speaks before a Senate committee in 2023. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo ·REUTERS / Reuters
“We don’t want to get involved in litigation just to make a point,” he added, “but I think if you’re in a knife fight, you’d better damn well bring a knife.”
No matter which candidate takes the country’s top job, some bankers are convinced that the election will not define an industry full of institutions that have endured at least a century of change.
“We’ve done this through World Wars, money panics, depressions, the Texas meltdown of the 80s, great financial crisis and COVID,” Phil Green, CEO of San Antonio-based Frost Bank, told Yahoo Finance. Frost is 156 years old.
Advertisement
“We’re kind of like cockroaches in that way. We’re gonna still be here, at least that’s our plan,” he added.
David Hollerith is a senior reporter for Yahoo Finance covering banking, crypto, and other areas in finance.
Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices.
Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance
Cornell University administrator Warren Petrofsky will serve as the Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ new dean of administration and finance, charged with spearheading efforts to shore up the school’s finances as it faces a hefty budget deficit.
Petrofsky’s appointment, announced in a Friday email from FAS Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra to FAS affiliates, will begin April 20 — nearly a year after former FAS dean of administration and finance Scott A. Jordan stepped down. Petrofsky will replace interim dean Mary Ann Bradley, who helped shape the early stages of FAS cost-cutting initiatives.
Petrofsky currently serves as associate dean of administration at Cornell University’s College of Arts and Sciences.
As dean, he oversaw a budget cut of nearly $11 million to the institution’s College of Arts and Sciences after the federal government slashed at least $250 million in stop-work orders and frozen grants, according to the Cornell Daily Sun.
He also serves on a work group established in November 2025 to streamline the school’s administrative systems.
Advertisement
Earlier, at the University of Pennsylvania, Petrofsky managed capital initiatives and organizational redesigns in a number of administrative roles.
Petrofsky is poised to lead similar efforts at the FAS, which relaunched its Resources Committee in spring 2025 and created a committee to consolidate staff positions amid massive federal funding cuts.
As part of its planning process, the committee has quietly brought on external help. Over several months, consultants from McKinsey & Company have been interviewing dozens of administrators and staff across the FAS.
Petrofsky will also likely have a hand in other cost-cutting measures across the FAS, which is facing a $365 million budget deficit. The school has already announced it will keep spending flat for the 2026 fiscal year, and it has dramatically reduced Ph.D. admissions.
In her email, Hoekstra praised Petrofsky’s performance across his career.
Advertisement
“Warren has emphasized transparency, clarity in communication, and investment in staff development,” she wrote. “He approaches change with steadiness and purpose, and with deep respect for the mission that unites our faculty, researchers, staff, and students. I am confident that he will be a strong partner to me and to our community.”
—Staff writer Amann S. Mahajan can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at amannsm.38. Follow her on X @amannmahajan.
My spreadsheet reviewed a WalletHub ranking of financial distress for the residents of 100 U.S. cities, including 17 in California. The analysis compared local credit scores, late bill payments, bankruptcy filings and online searches for debt or loans to quantify where individuals had the largest money challenges.
When California cities were divided into three geographic regions – Southern California, the Bay Area, and anything inland – the most challenges were often found far from the coast.
The average national ranking of the six inland cities was 39th worst for distress, the most troubled grade among the state’s slices.
Bakersfield received the inland region’s worst score, ranking No. 24 highest nationally for financial distress. That was followed by Sacramento (30th), San Bernardino (39th), Stockton (43rd), Fresno (45th), and Riverside (52nd).
Advertisement
Southern California’s seven cities overall fared better, with an average national ranking of 56th largest financial problems.
However, Los Angeles had the state’s ugliest grade, ranking fifth-worst nationally for monetary distress. Then came San Diego at 22nd-worst, then Long Beach (48th), Irvine (70th), Anaheim (71st), Santa Ana (85th), and Chula Vista (89th).
Monetary challenges were limited in the Bay Area. Its four cities average rank was 69th worst nationally.
San Jose had the region’s most distressed finances, with a No. 50 worst ranking. That was followed by Oakland (69th), San Francisco (72nd), and Fremont (83rd).
The results remind us that inland California’s affordability – it’s home to the state’s cheapest housing, for example – doesn’t fully compensate for wages that typically decline the farther one works from the Pacific Ocean.
Advertisement
A peek inside the scorecard’s grades shows where trouble exists within California.
Credit scores were the lowest inland, with little difference elsewhere. Late payments were also more common inland. Tardy bills were most difficult to find in Northern California.
Bankruptcy problems also were bubbling inland, but grew the slowest in Southern California. And worrisome online searches were more frequent inland, while varying only slightly closer to the Pacific.
Note: Across the state’s 17 cities in the study, the No. 53 average rank is a middle-of-the-pack grade on the 100-city national scale for monetary woes.
Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com
The up-and-coming fintech scored a pair of fourth-quarter beats.
Diversified fintech Chime Financial(CHYM +12.88%) was playing a satisfying tune to investors on Thursday. The company’s stock flew almost 14% higher that trading session, thanks mostly to a fourth quarter that featured notably higher-than-expected revenue guidance.
Sweet music
Chime published its fourth-quarter and full-year 2025 results just after market close on Wednesday. For the former period, the company’s revenue was $596 million, bettering the same quarter of 2024 by 25%. The company’s strongest revenue stream, payments, rose 17% to $396 million. Its take from platform-related activity rose more precipitously, advancing 47% to $200 million.
Image source: Getty Images.
Meanwhile, Chime’s net loss under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) more than doubled. It was $45 million, or $0.12 per share, compared with a fourth-quarter 2024 deficit of $19.6 million.
Advertisement
On average, analysts tracking the stock were modeling revenue below $578 million and a deeper bottom-line loss of $0.20 per share.
In its earnings release, Chime pointed to the take-up of its Chime Card as a particular catalyst for growth. Regarding the product, the company said, “Among new member cohorts, over half are adopting Chime Card, and those members are putting over 70% of their Chime spend on the product, which earns materially higher take rates compared to debit.”
Today’s Change
(12.88%) $2.72
Current Price
$23.83
Advertisement
Key Data Points
Market Cap
$7.9B
Day’s Range
$22.30 – $24.63
52wk Range
Advertisement
$16.17 – $44.94
Volume
562K
Avg Vol
3.3M
Advertisement
Gross Margin
86.34%
Double-digit growth expected
Chime management proffered revenue and non-GAAP (adjusted) earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) guidance for full-year 2026. The company expects to post a top line of $627 million to $637 million, which would represent at least 21% growth over the 2024 result. Adjusted EBITDA should be $380 million to $400 million. No net income forecasts were provided in the earnings release.
It isn’t easy to find a niche in the financial industry, which is crowded with companies offering every imaginable type of service to clients. Yet Chime seems to be achieving that, as the Chime Card is clearly a hit among the company’s target demographic of clientele underserved by mainstream banks. This growth stock is definitely worth considering as a buy.
