Investment bank report "causes trouble again," Bensent angrily criticizes JPMorgan Chase, which claims that US maritime insurance is "insufficient to cope with Iranian risks."

US Treasury Secretary Besent publicly lashed out at Wall Street investment bank analysts once again, this time targeting JPMorgan Chase.

On March 6, according to Bloomberg, JPMorgan analysts evaluated in a report that the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), under the US government, was far from having enough insurance capacity to cover the actual risks faced by oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, implying the institution's "firepower is too weak."

Besent immediately responded on Fox Business Channel, stating that the report is "terrible," "completely irresponsible" analysis, and based on a "totally wrong assumption,". This is the second time in less than two months that Besent has publicly criticized Wall Street investment bank analysts.

The background of the event is that the Trump administration is actively pushing to restore shipping order in the Strait of Hormuz. Earlier this week, Trump instructed DFC to provide reasonably priced insurance for oil tankers in the Persian Gulf to ensure trade flows. On Friday, the White House further announced the launch of a $20 billion reinsurance program aimed at revitalizing shipping activity in the Strait of Hormuz.

JPMorgan Report: DFC Capacity "A Drop in the Bucket"

According to Bloomberg, JPMorgan analysts Natasha Kaneva and others released a report on Wednesday that provided a quantitative assessment of DFC’s insurance capabilities.

The report estimated that under the current loan limit, DFC still had about $154 billion in remaining capacity. Meanwhile, analysts calculated that the "maximum insurance gap" in the Persian Gulf region that "the private market currently cannot provide" was about $352 billion. In comparison, DFC’s available capital is much less than the potential risk exposure, leading to the conclusion that DFC’s "firepower" is "too small in scale" to cope with Iranian risks.

Besent Strikes Back: The Assumptions Are Fundamentally Flawed

Besent fundamentally questioned the above analysis. He stated on Fox Business Channel, "I cannot tell you how wrong it is," directly characterizing the report as a "bad report" and "completely irresponsible."

Besent’s core rebuttal logic: DFC’s insurance coverage does not need to extend beyond oil tankers leaving the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf region.

He explained, "Once the ships exit the strait and leave the Gulf region, they can resume normal insurance—so (JPMorgan’s calculations) are entirely based on a wrong assumption."

In other words, Besent believes that JPMorgan overextended the coverage range when calculating the insurance gap, leading to seriously inflated numbers.

Besent’s Continued Friction with Wall Street

This attack on JPMorgan is not the first time Besent has publicly confronted Wall Street analysts. According to Bloomberg, less than two months ago, Besent publicly criticized a Deutsche Bank analyst.

The analyst had written in a report that given Trump’s threat to Greenland, Europe might reduce its willingness to hold US assets, which Besent strongly refuted.

Both confrontations point to the same pattern: When Wall Street analysts’ reports challenge Trump administration policy positions or execution capabilities, Besent chooses to respond publicly rather than through conventional channels.

This approach has created a rare public tension between the Treasury Secretary and investment banks, with the market keeping a close eye on policy communication methods.

$20 Billion Reinsurance Plan Implemented

On the same day Besent voiced the above criticisms, according to a Wallstreetcn article, the Trump administration announced the launch of a $20 billion reinsurance plan to address concerns about shipping risks in the Strait of Hormuz through concrete measures.

Before the reinsurance plan by DFC was launched, US President Trump announced this Tuesday that he had instructed DFC to provide “very reasonable prices” for “all maritime trade passing through the Gulf, especially energy trade,” including political risk insurance and financial security guarantees, with a focus on energy trade.

Analysts believe this measure is a direct response to regional tensions stemming from the US-Israel attack on Iran, Tehran’s subsequent retaliatory actions, and resulting dysfunction in the commercial maritime insurance market.

Risk Disclosure and DisclaimerThe market has risks and investments require caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account specific investment objectives, financial situation, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article are suitable for their specific circumstances. Investments based on this article are at your own risk.