Browsing the leading US banks’ recently published proxy statements and leading European banks’ annual reports, I scanned the sections on competitors to see which each firm lists as peers to see if anything had materially changed. It hadn’t. But watch that space.

The competitor lists in those documents are compiled mainly for purposes of tracking industry-wide compensation, executive exit risk and other factors. But they’re also a reasonable representation of the firms that are seen as competing for revenue, either globally or in certain geographies or product areas. The list of European competitors compiled by the US banks is remarkably short. But what does that actually tell us in today’s changing world?

The long-running back story here is widespread concern among European policymakers and politicians about the extent to which European firms are able to compete with US banks ( and to a lesser extent Chinese banks ) in lending and corporate finance, not just in their home territory but supporting European firms globally as well.

Addressing the perceived inability of European banks to compete in size and reach has become a political priority in recent years. Europe’s politicians and policymakers were already anxious about this, alongside a lack of energy and defence security. A lack of competitive firepower in financial services is seen as a threat to European financial sovereignty.

EU policymakers have continued to actively push the cause of banking and capital markets union to create strong European financial services players and pan-regional markets, although success to-date has in truth been limited. The over-arching policy goal to this point has been to create large pan-European competitors able to compete toe-to-toe with international firms in the provision of finance and capital intermediation to back European growth.

Cross-border banking consolidation within the European Union as part of that process has been seen as a key component, although that has run into some considerable hostility. That much became crystal clear when UniCredit boosted its stake in Commerzbank recently with an eye on a takeover, to the horror of German politicians mortified at the prospect of one of their own being owned by Italians. European banking consolidation has happened mainly in country.

But in the dystopian Trump 2.0 world that is now emerging, have policymakers’ anxiety levels over this risen? Or will the rise of US-led protectionism and the beginning of the end to globalization as we know it actually assuage their concerns as it will lead instead to a process of financial deglobalization or regionalization where each region’s banks retreat to focus on their own geographies?

Who sees whom as competitors?

So, who do the large internationally active US banks currently see as European competitors? Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley list just Barclays, Deutsche Bank and UBS. No surprises there as these happen to be the only European firms that made it into LSEG Deals Intelligence’s top 20 investment banking fee earners in the US in 2024.

JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup list the same three, plus HSBC. No surprises there either given HSBC’s alignment with their large-scale commercial banking activities. To the list of four, Wells Fargo adds Banco Santander and BNP Paribas ( BNPP ) but excludes Deutsche Bank.

It's curious that only Wells Fargo considers BNPP as a competitor. And no one has Crédit Agricole or Société Générale, which have sizable investment banks, on the radar. Nor any Japanese or Canadian firm. Odd given that Mizuho, SMBC, MUFG, Nomura, RBC, TD and BMO all ranked in the top 25 global investment banking fee earners for FY2024.

BNPP in particular was the second-ranked European firm among last year’s global investment banking fee earners ( in eighth place overall ), behind the top-ranked nominally European firm Barclays ( sixth overall ) but ahead of Deutsche Bank ( nineth ), UBS ( 12th ), HSBC ( 14th ) and Santander ( 24th ). I say nominally because since Barclays’ acquisition of Lehman Brothers’ US business, it’s been a split US/European player in investment banking.

Who are European banks eyeing up in their own backyard? Pretty much the same group. Barclays’ peer group consists of BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank, HSBC and UBS. UBS lists Barclays, BNP Paribas and Deutsche Bank but not HSBC. Deutsche Bank doesn’t name names.

Status quo subject to change

Although there has been a lot of chatter about the US banks eating the European banks’ lunch in Europe, the situation is far from clearcut and the future is perhaps more uncertain now than at any time in the recent past.

If in the Americas, only three European players made the US investment banking fee top 20, by the same token only four US banks made the Europe, Middle East and Africa ( EMEA ) region’s top 20. That’s because the US only has four leading full-service international corporate and investment banks. Wells Fargo doesn’t make the cut on an international basis, while Jefferies has a much slimmer service offering.

Those Big Four do all occupy top five positions in the EMEA region because they focus on serving the needs of the Europe-based multinationals and national champions that are the most active users of investment banking products. As such, US firms garnered 26.5% of EMEA investment banking fees last year. Significant, but not overwhelming.

Beyond those four, the EMEA investment banking fee league table is heavily dominated by Europeans. As is the 2024 EMEA syndicated lending bookrunner league table, where US firms have an aggregate market share of just 12.9%. And US firms don’t play at all in areas like project and infrastructure finance, which is the marquee product for the Japanese megabanks ( SMBC, Mizuho and MUFG ).

The global trade war has only just got going. Let’s see where things stand once the tariff flip-flopping has abated. But here’s the six-million-dollar question: will Donald Trump put up with US banks competitively financing and advising non-US companies and governments?