Restoring the competitiveness of European banks and asset managers can’t be achieved by tweaking regulations
3 min
After a decade and a half of seeing the U.S. economy pull ahead thanks to its outsize technology sector, European politicians are desperate to fight back in emerging industries such as green energy. One challenge they face is that America also keeps pulling ahead in the business of financing the investments required.
On Thursday, Luxembourg for Finance—a public-private partnership that seeks to promote the financial industry in the low-tax city state—published a report detailing the different ways in which European banks and asset managers might regain an edge relative to U.S. and Asian peers.
This is part of an effort by officials across the European Union to give firms a break. “Old economy” industries such as car manufacturing face rising competition from China and higher energy costs since Russia invaded Ukraine. The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act also has drawn investment across the Atlantic. Last year, the European Commission tasked former Italian prime ministers Mario Draghi and Enrico Letta with drafting a report on European competitiveness.
Luxembourg for Finance Chief Executive Nicolas Mackel echoes a common refrain: “Europe can take the lead in financial services when we eliminate fragmentation.” His report points out that the return on equity of European banks has bounced back in recent years. But it also showcases the gulf that has opened up relative to U.S. financial firms.
European lenders’ return on equity is now around 8%, compared with 12% across the Atlantic and 10% in Asia, in part as a result of stricter regulations following the 2008 banking crisis. Most European banks trade below book value on the stock market, having returned a negative 14% to investors since the April 2009 trough. Large American banks trade above book value and have gained 113%.
In services particularly exposed to international competition, American banks dominate in Europe too: In 2023, they took the top five positions for mergers and acquisitions deals, Dealogic data shows, with France’s BNP Paribas coming in sixth, and the top six spots for issuing equity.
And this isn’t just about banks. In 2007, top European and U.S. asset managers roughly split the global market between them. By 2022, European fund managers had just 22% of total assets under supervision, with only France’s Amundi playing in the big leagues. This reflects their failure to jump on the train of low-fee passive investment as effectively as U.S. giants such as Vanguard and BlackRock. Ironically, the latter’s dominance in exchange-traded funds resulted from its acquisition of iShares from Britain’s Barclays in 2009.
European officials are taking some useful steps. They admitted in 2022 that a directive aimed at harmonising securities markets, known as Mifid 2, has done more harm than good, and have agreed to amend it. New EU-wide savings products give pensioners greater choice, and might help address the lack of sophistication that characterises European individual investors relative to Americans used to managing 401(k)s. Stringent constraints on what asset managers can offer are being relaxed, and the rules governing sustainable finance—where Europe has an edge—are being clarified.
Meanwhile, the fallout from last year’s Silicon Valley Bank debacle will bring U.S. regulation closer to Europe’s.
Such rule changes might narrow the gap, as investors have recognised: The stock-market discount at which European lenders trade compared with American ones has shrunk over the past three years. But it is hard to see the tables fundamentally turning. In the digital era, economies of scale are even more powerful. The European Union comprises many countries with different languages, whose firms and investors have local financial relationships and strong home biases. The obstacles to eliminating fragmentation are huge.
If Europe can’t compete with America’s private financial muscle, it is doubly problematic that its efforts to mobilise industrial investment through the public sector have been meek compared with the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act. Promoting more sustainability-minded funds isn’t an adequate fix.
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
What a quarter-million dollars gets you in the western capital.
Alexandre de Betak and his wife are focusing on their most personal project yet.
Multinationals like Starbucks and Marriott are taking a hard look at their Chinese operations—and tempering their outlooks.
4 min
For years, global companies showcased their Chinese operations as a source of robust growth. A burgeoning middle class, a stream of people moving to cities, and the creation of new services to cater to them—along with the promise of the further opening of the world’s second-largest economy—drew companies eager to tap into the action.
Then Covid hit, isolating China from much of the world. Chinese leader Xi Jinping tightened control of the economy, and U.S.-China relations hit a nadir. After decades of rapid growth, China’s economy is stuck in a rut, with increasing concerns about what will drive the next phase of its growth.
Though Chinese officials have acknowledged the sputtering economy, they have been reluctant to take more than incremental steps to reverse the trend. Making matters worse, government crackdowns on internet companies and measures to burst the country’s property bubble left households and businesses scarred.
Now, multinational companies are taking a hard look at their Chinese operations and tempering their outlooks. Marriott International narrowed its global revenue per available room growth rate to 3% to 4%, citing continued weakness in China and expectations that demand could weaken further in the third quarter. Paris-based Kering , home to brands Gucci and Saint Laurent, posted a 22% decline in sales in the Asia-Pacific region, excluding Japan, in the first half amid weaker demand in Greater China, which includes Hong Kong and Macau.
Pricing pressure and deflation were common themes in quarterly results. Starbucks , which helped build a coffee culture in China over the past 25 years, described it as one of its most notable international challenges as it posted a 14% decline in sales from that business. As Chinese consumers reconsidered whether to spend money on Starbucks lattes, competitors such as Luckin Coffee increased pressure on the Seattle company. Starbucks executives said in their quarterly earnings call that “unprecedented store expansion” by rivals and a price war hurt profits and caused “significant disruptions” to the operating environment.
Executive anxiety extends beyond consumer companies. Elevator maker Otis Worldwide saw new-equipment orders in China fall by double digits in the second quarter, forcing it to cut its outlook for growth out of Asia. CEO Judy Marks told analysts on a quarterly earnings call that prices in China were down roughly 10% year over year, and she doesn’t see the pricing pressure abating. The company is turning to productivity improvements and cost cutting to blunt the hit.
Add in the uncertainty created by deteriorating U.S.-China relations, and many investors are steering clear. The iShares MSCI China exchange-traded fund has lost half its value since March 2021. Recovery attempts have been short-lived. undefined undefined And now some of those concerns are creeping into the U.S. market. “A decade ago China exposure [for a global company] was a way to add revenue growth to our portfolio,” says Margaret Vitrano, co-manager of large-cap growth strategies at ClearBridge Investments in New York. Today, she notes, “we now want to manage the risk of the China exposure.”
Vitrano expects improvement in 2025, but cautions it will be slow. Uncertainty over who will win the U.S. presidential election and the prospect of higher tariffs pose additional risks for global companies.
For now, China is inching along at roughly 5% economic growth—down from a peak of 14% in 2007 and an average of about 8% in the 10 years before the pandemic. Chinese consumers hit by job losses and continued declines in property values are rethinking spending habits. Businesses worried about policy uncertainty are reluctant to invest and hire.
The trouble goes beyond frugal consumers. Xi is changing the economy’s growth model, relying less on the infrastructure and real estate market that fueled earlier growth. That means investing aggressively in manufacturing and exports as China looks to become more self-reliant and guard against geopolitical tensions.
The shift is hurting western multinationals, with deflationary forces amid burgeoning production capacity. “We have seen the investment community mark down expectations for these companies because they will have to change tack with lower-cost products and services,” says Joseph Quinlan, head of market strategy for the chief investment office at Merrill and Bank of America Private Bank.
Another challenge for multinationals outside of China is stiffened competition as Chinese companies innovate and expand—often with the backing of the government. Local rivals are upping the ante across sectors by building on their knowledge of local consumer preferences and the ability to produce higher-quality products.
Some global multinationals are having a hard time keeping up with homegrown innovation. Auto makers including General Motors have seen sales tumble and struggled to turn profitable as Chinese car shoppers increasingly opt for electric vehicles from BYD or NIO that are similar in price to internal-combustion-engine cars from foreign auto makers.
“China’s electric-vehicle makers have by leaps and bounds surpassed the capabilities of foreign brands who have a tie to the profit pool of internal combustible engines that they don’t want to disrupt,” says Christine Phillpotts, a fund manager for Ariel Investments’ emerging markets strategies.
Chinese companies are often faster than global rivals to market with new products or tweaks. “The cycle can be half of what it is for a global multinational with subsidiaries that need to check with headquarters, do an analysis, and then refresh,” Phillpotts says.
For many companies and investors, next year remains a question mark. Ashland CEO Guillermo Novo said in an August call with analysts that the chemical company was seeing a “big change” in China, with activity slowing and competition on pricing becoming more aggressive. The company, he said, was still trying to grasp the repercussions as it has created uncertainty in its 2025 outlook.
Few companies are giving up. Executives at big global consumer and retail companies show no signs of reducing investment, with most still describing China as a long-term growth market, says Dana Telsey, CEO of Telsey Advisory Group.
Starbucks executives described the long-term opportunity as “significant,” with higher growth and margin opportunities in the future as China’s population continues to move from rural to suburban areas. But they also noted that their approach is evolving and they are in the early stages of exploring strategic partnerships.
Walmart sold its stake in August in Chinese e-commerce giant JD.com for $3.6 billion after an eight-year noncompete agreement expired. Analysts expect it to pump the money into its own Sam’s Club and Walmart China operation, which have benefited from the trend toward trading down in China.
“The story isn’t over for the global companies,” Phillpotts says. “It just means the effort and investment will be greater to compete.”
Corrections & Amplifications
Joseph Quinlan is head of market strategy for the chief investment office at Merrill and Bank of America Private Bank. An earlier version of this article incorrectly used his old title.
