Dealmakers Tell Bloomberg the Midterms Won't Stall M&A

JPMorgan global head of M&A Charlie Bouckaert and Weil partner Michael Aiello told Bloomberg Deals on Sept. 23, 2026 that they expect no slowdown in global dealmaking ahead of the U.S. midterm elections, citing AI disruption and a "war for talent" as defining forces; JPMorgan shares traded at 337.36, down 0.78% on the day.

The standard playbook says corporate dealmaking cools as a U.S. election approaches. Boards wait out the policy uncertainty, financing committees get cautious, and the pipeline shifts to the far side of the vote. Two of the people who see that pipeline up close say it is not happening this cycle.

Charlie Bouckaert, global head of mergers and acquisitions at JPMorgan, and Michael Aiello, a partner at law firm Weil, told Bloomberg Markets on Sept. 23 that they expect no slowdown in global M&A ahead of the midterm elections. Speaking with Dani Burger and David Carnevali on "Bloomberg Deals," the pair pointed to artificial intelligence disruption and an intensifying "war for talent" as the forces shaping how transactions are being sourced, structured and staffed.

Why the election calendar matters less than it used to

Election-year caution in M&A is usually about two things: what the antitrust agencies will do, and what the tax code will look like. A midterm, unlike a presidential cycle, changes neither immediately. Control of Congress can shift the legislative agenda, but it does not swap out the enforcement leadership at the antitrust agencies or rewrite deal-relevant tax law on a timetable that a signed merger agreement would notice. A transaction announced in the autumn and closing the following year is, on the regulatory clock, largely insulated from the November vote.

That is the structural case for the view Bouckaert and Aiello put forward. There is a behavioural one too. When boards have deferred a strategic move once — through a rate cycle, a financing squeeze, a geopolitical scare — the appetite for deferring it again on a calendar technicality tends to thin out. Deal fatigue cuts both ways: at some point, the cost of waiting exceeds the cost of moving.

A caveat worth keeping in view: an advisory bank's global head of M&A and a senior transactional lawyer are not disinterested forecasters of transaction volume. Their read is informed by live mandates, which makes it valuable, but their franchises are built on activity continuing. Take the directional signal; hold the certainty loosely.

AI has moved from deal theme to deal driver

The AI element in dealmaking has passed through distinct phases. First it was a valuation story — buyers paying up for anything with a model attached. Then it became a defensive story, with incumbents acquiring to avoid being disintermediated. What Bouckaert and Aiello describe as AI disruption now sits closer to the centre of strategic rationale: companies are buying and selling assets because AI is changing the economics of the underlying business, not because AI is the asset.

That reframing matters for how deals get done. When the acquisition thesis rests on a technology curve rather than a cost-synergy schedule, diligence changes, earn-out structures get more use, and the gap between buyer and seller expectations widens before it closes. It also pulls in a wider set of counterparties — private capital, strategic buyers outside the target's sector, and corporate venture arms that previously stopped at minority stakes.

The talent fight is now a line item in advisory economics

The "war for talent" phrase is familiar to anyone who has followed investment banking hiring through an up-cycle, but it lands differently when both a bulge-bracket M&A head and a law-firm partner raise it in the same conversation. Advisory is a people business with almost no other input cost. When senior bankers and transactional partners are being bid away, the practical consequences show up as compensation pressure on the banks and rate pressure at the firms — and as capacity constraints on how many complex mandates any one team can carry at once.

Boutique advisory firms and litigation-adjacent practices have been the most visible beneficiaries of that movement in recent cycles. For the large institutions, the question is whether a strong pipeline can be converted at full economics when the marginal senior banker is expensive and portable. A busy market with a tight talent pool is a good problem, but it is still a problem.

What the tape said on the day

The comments landed on a soft session for U.S. equities. As of the last trade at 19:58:50 GMT on Sept. 23, 2026, the S&P 500 tracker (SPY) was at $767.53, down 0.76% from the prior close of $773.38, with a day range of $766.50 to $773.59. The Nasdaq 100 proxy (QQQ) traded at $740.88, off 0.88% from $747.46, and the Dow 30 fund (DIA) was at $514.28, down 0.72% from $518.00. All three sat near the bottom of their intraday ranges.

JPMorgan (ticker: JPM) traded at 337.36, down 0.78% from a previous close of 340.00, inside a day range of 336.98 to 341.44. That is a move broadly in line with the S&P 500 tracker's 0.76% decline rather than a reaction to anything said on air — a reminder that advisory commentary, however senior the speaker, rarely moves a universal bank's share price on the day. Investment banking fees are one contributor among many at an institution of that size, alongside consumer lending, trading and asset management.

What would actually break the no-slowdown call

Three things, none of them electoral. The first is financing. A sustained widening in credit spreads or a step up in funding costs does more to stall large-cap M&A than any political calendar, because it changes what a buyer can pay. The second is an antitrust surprise — not a change in who runs the agencies, but a blocked or heavily conditioned deal in a sector where the market assumed clearance, which would reprice risk across every comparable transaction in the pipeline.

The third is the AI trade itself. If the valuations attached to AI-exposed businesses compress sharply, the bid-ask spread between buyers and sellers widens at exactly the point where the deal thesis is hardest to underwrite. Transactions built on a technology curve are the most exposed to a change in the market's view of that curve.

What to watch from here

The tell over the coming weeks is announcement cadence rather than commentary. If large strategic transactions continue to be signed through October and into November, the no-slowdown thesis holds on its own evidence. If announcements cluster after the vote, the traditional pattern reasserted itself and the dealmakers were talking their book.

Also worth tracking: whether the AI-driven deals shifting sector boundaries keep drawing non-traditional buyers, and whether senior advisory departures continue at the pace that made the talent question worth raising on air in the first place. Both are slower-moving than a monthly volume tally, and both say more about where the fee pool ends up.

Key facts

• JPM last trade: 337.36, -0.78% (as of 19:58:50 GMT, Sept. 23, 2026)
• Speakers: Charlie Bouckaert, JPMorgan global head of M&A; Michael Aiello, partner at Weil
• Core claim: No slowdown in global dealmaking expected ahead of the U.S. midterm elections
• Session backdrop: SPY $767.53 (-0.76%), QQQ $740.88 (-0.88%), DIA $514.28 (-0.72%)

Frequently asked questions

What did the JPMorgan and Weil dealmakers actually say?

Charlie Bouckaert, JPMorgan's global head of M&A, and Weil partner Michael Aiello said on Bloomberg Deals on Sept. 23, 2026 that they do not expect global dealmaking to slow ahead of the U.S. midterm elections. They also discussed AI disruption reshaping deal rationale and an intensifying war for talent across banking and law.

Why would an election normally slow M&A activity?

Boards typically pause ahead of elections because of uncertainty over antitrust enforcement and tax policy, both of which affect whether a deal clears and what it is worth after tax. A midterm changes neither immediately, which is part of why senior dealmakers argue the usual caution is less applicable in this cycle.

How did JPMorgan shares trade that day?

JPMorgan traded at 337.36 as of the last trade at 19:58:50 GMT on Sept. 23, 2026, down 0.78% from a previous close of 340.00, within a day range of 336.98 to 341.44. That decline was broadly in line with the wider market rather than a reaction to the on-air commentary.

What does 'war for talent' mean in investment banking?

It refers to competition for senior bankers and transactional lawyers, who are the main input cost in an advisory business. When they are bid away by rivals or boutiques, banks face compensation pressure and law firms face rate pressure, and teams can hit capacity limits on how many complex mandates they can carry simultaneously.

How is AI changing the way deals are structured?

When an acquisition thesis rests on a technology curve rather than predictable cost synergies, diligence becomes harder and buyers and sellers disagree more on value. That tends to increase the use of earn-outs and contingent consideration, and it widens the pool of potential buyers to include firms outside the target's traditional sector.

What would signal the no-slowdown call was wrong?

Watch for announcements clustering after the November vote rather than before it. Other risks are a sustained widening in credit spreads, which raises financing costs and limits what buyers can pay, an unexpected antitrust block that reprices deal risk across a sector, and a sharp compression in AI-related valuations.

Sources

• No Slowdown Expected Ahead of Midterms: Top Dealmakers — Bloomberg Markets