Santander

The new battleground for U.S. banking will be about who owns relationships, not who has the biggest balance sheet.

Netflix Inc. co-founder and former CEO Reed Hastings said a few things in 2014 that American banks and fintechs should consider pinning on the breakroom wall or at the top of their main Slack channel. 

“We were so obsessed with not being the next Kodak, the next AOL, about not being the company that clung to its roots and missed the big thing.” Hastings recalled: “We said if there’s a bias, we should be more aggressive; we have to be so aggressive it makes our skin crawl.”

Hastings was reflecting on Netflix’s failed 2011 decision to split its DVD and streaming businesses. The move turned him into a temporary laughingstock—one who, as history has made clear, had the last laugh. 

It’s hard to imagine the CEO of a major American bank or fintech saying anything like this.  

And that’s precisely the problem: While many U.S. banks and fintechs still think like financial institutions, Europe’s most ambitious challengers think like global technology companies. 

No Time for Excuses

Global technology companies don’t wait for perfect conditions; they navigate imperfect ones. 

That’s the playbook businesses such as Netflix, Uber Technologies Inc., and Amazon.com Inc. followed because international expansion was always part of the plan. These companies didn’t use legal complexity as an excuse for standing still, nor did they stop after achieving success. 

Of course, tech isn’t banking. One could argue that the stakes are higher and the consequences of being too aggressive are greater. 

But Revolut Group Holdings Ltd. co-founder and CEO Nik Storonsky might politely disagree, because that’s exactly what London-based Revolut is doing as it blazes its global trail—politely disagreeing. 

Amid exponential growth in Europe, the company has had to deal with different regulations, entrenched incumbents, and cultural barriers across nations—and, in some cases, even regions. For goodness’ sake, Revolut had to make Catalan, not Castilian (Spanish), the default language on its ATMs throughout Spain’s Catalonia region, which includes Barcelona. 

The point is clear: The U.S. is hardly the only market where regulation and culture can feel like roadblocks. Fintechs such as Revolut have amassed considerable experience dealing with these obstacles. 

As Yorick Naeff, head of innovation at ABN AMRO Bank NV, told me, Europe may talk about a single market, but companies still have “to conquer every market separately again and again.” Tax systems, know-your-customer rules, reporting requirements, consumer behavior, and language all change from country to country—as do the challenges along the way. 

In other words, Europe is already a regulatory maze. Fundamentally, the U.S. isn’t a different challenge; it’s just a new one. 

Recently, the Financial Times reported that the European Central Bank placed restrictions on Revolut in 2025 to slow down the company’s rapid approval of new products. In April, news broke that Italian authorities fined Revolut €11.5 million ($13.3 million) for “unfair commercial practices.”

Revolut’s response has been a mix of pushback, lip service, and concrete action, such as hiring experienced banking executives who can help the company scale globally while managing complex regulatory environments. None of this has stopped what Storonsky called the company’s “self-guided missiles”—small groups of employees who have the latitude to deploy new products rapidly with minimal corporate oversight. 

Revolut has more than 70 million customers worldwide, up from 50 million in November 2024. Across France, Poland, Germany, the U.K., Ireland, Italy, and Spain, nearly one in three new financial accounts is with Revolut. Despite the regulatory friction, Revolut adds about four new Italian customers per minute. In Spain, where traditional banks are thought to have a stronghold, Revolut has more than 6 million accounts for a 13% penetration rate, making it the country’s fourth-largest bank by number of customers. 

Revolut enters the U.S. battle-tested, armed with the necessary experience to navigate another complicated regulatory landscape, ready to seize the opportunity American banks and fintechs have left wide open. 

Cash App: The Exception That Proves the Rule

To an observer in Europe, one thing is obvious: The U.S. still lacks a company trying to own the entire financial relationship. 

Americans still piece together banking, payments, investing, foreign exchange, travel, insurance, and mobile connectivity across multiple platforms. That’s far less the case in Europe and elsewhere around the world. 

Revolut, the U.K.’s Monzo Bank Ltd., Germany’s N26 AG, and the Netherlands’ bunq BV all extend well beyond traditional banking. Spain’s Banco Santander SA recently launched an eSIM directly in its app. Swedish buy-now-pay-later pioneer Klarna Bank AB is a fully licensed bank in the E.U. and has applied for its U.S. banking license. 

None of these companies see banking as a collection of products. They want to be the primary financial relationship—the place where customers start, not occasionally visit. 

Ironically, the closest the U.S. has to this model isn’t a traditional bank at all; it’s Cash App. Block Inc., the parent company of Cash App, deserves enormous credit for recognizing that consumer finance is about more than checking, high APYs, and commission-free stock trades. But as big as it has become, Cash App remains more narrowly focused than the expansive ecosystems emerging across Europe, many with their sights set on the U.S. 

JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon also deserves credit for recognizing that something has changed. When he admitted he was jealous of Revolut’s speed, it didn’t take a linguist to read between the lines.

Sure, Dimon was complimenting a rival—as JPMorgan continues to compete more aggressively on Revolut’s European turf—but it appears he was sending a message to the U.S. banking establishment. By and large, the companies operating like tomorrow’s global consumer platforms aren’t American, and their speed and ambition are something to aspire to. 

So why take on America now? As Naeff pointed out, part of the reason “is the size of the market; with even a small percentage market share, you can create an attractive business case.” Just as importantly, these companies believe they can compete not simply on rates or fees, but on experience.

Unless more American banks and fintechs start thinking like global tech companies—such as Netflix, Uber, and Amazon or, in their same sector, like Santander—Europe’s challengers won’t just enter the U.S. market; they’ll redefine what consumers come to expect from the companies they trust with their money.  

Rocco Pendola is a U.S.-born journalist based in Spain covering finance, fintech, and investing.

The largest North American and European banks posted double-digit gains as higher-for-longer inflation looms.

All the biggest North American and European banks expect full-year 2026 profits to meet or exceed projections, as AI spending and a surge in market and investment banking activity fueled second-quarter profits.

With drama surrounding AI disruption in the tech sector and gyrations in the commodities markets tied to the war in the Middle East, trading volumes have been robust all year, including the first month of the third quarter.

Christopher Marinac, a banking analyst at Brean Capital, said a steepening Treasury yield curve is allowing banks to improve spreads on loans and securities.

“The way banks are pricing loans is just stable to slightly better, and that is bullish for net [income],” Marinac told Global Finance. “That is the sort of positive undertone.”

The earnings underscored that optimism. Industry leader JPMorgan Chase reported a 41% increase in second-quarter net income, while investment banking giants Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley posted gains of 84% and 57.7%, respectively. Bank of America’s profit rose 27%, Citigroup’s 45%, and Wells Fargo’s 16.6%. Canadian giant Royal Bank of Canada rose 25%. European banks also delivered strong results, led by UBS with a huge 134% increase; Santander jumped 17%; Barclays added 15.3%; and Deutsche Bank gained 10%.

Inflation remains a threat to growth, and investor jitters about shifts in tech spending away from more traditional software names have fed stock market volatility, along with the latest Fed moves.

But for now, banks are doing extremely well, with mega IPOs such as Anthropic and OpenAI potentially on deck, following the record $75 billion SpaceX IPO and an $85 billion capital raise for Alphabet, which boosted investment-banking fees in the second quarter.

The regulatory environment remains relatively friendly, and larger M&A deals continue to occur, including the $10 billion acquisition of Crinetics Pharmaceuticals by Vertex Pharmaceuticals, announced on July 10.

The performance so far bodes well for 2026 bonuses, given a strong first half of the year.

JPMorgan, BofA, Santander All Looking Up

During second-quarter calls with Wall Street analysts, JPMorgan Chase raised its net interest income outlook for the year, while Deutsche Bank said it will meet or exceed its net interest income outlook, and Bank of America projected 2026 net income growth at the upper end of its 6% to 8% range.

Barclays raised its 2026 profit forecast to £31.5 billion ($42 billion) from £31 billion and said it still expects to meet its full-year performance goals.

UBS Group CFO Todd Tuckner said he’s “confident” the bank will exceed its 2026 targets, with a formal update expected later this year. He added that the bank is “well-positioned” to outperform its exit-rate return target despite market uncertainty around inflation and interest rates. 

Santander, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Royal Bank of Canada kept their guidance unchanged but signaled stronger earnings ahead.

“Not everybody is giving the increase of guidance, but I think there’s higher conviction in the existing guidance for those who did comment,” Brean Capital’s Marinac said.

Looking ahead, the big banks are still optimistic about AI, both to improve internal efficiency and deal-making.

Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon said AI investments are feeding capital needs for infrastructure, energy and data centers — not just core technology.

“This is creating significant opportunities for Goldman Sachs to provide structuring, financing, risk management, and capital markets execution across both public and private markets,” Solomon said.

Deutsche Bank Group Treasurer Richard Stewart said private pension reforms are creating a positive opportunity for Germany’s largest bank, alongside AI, “which is evolving even faster than we expected.”

Banking analyst Marinac said he expects European banks to benefit from the need to increase military and domestic spending.

“As everybody looks a little bit more inward, that’s probably good for business from a bank’s standpoint,” he said.

Some Big Banks Slash Jobs

Along with favorable conditions in the bond market, another earnings tailwind for banks has come from headcount reductions and productivity gains.

Citigroup cut 5,000 jobs in the second quarter, bringing its total headcount down to 219,000. Wells Fargo reduced its headcount by 3,500 to 197,000, and UBS eliminated 2,500 positions, bringing its total headcount to under 100,000. 

Analysts asked banks such as Wells Fargo how AI is shaping the job picture as technology advances.

Wells Fargo CFO Mike Santomassimo said the bank has “a lot of room to grow” to improve efficiency. But it also continues to hire branch bankers, investment advisors, commercial banking relationship managers, investment bankers, and traders.

“Certainly, technology and AI help us get at aspects of that in a different way or faster than maybe in the past,” Santomassimo said. “We expect that we’ll continue to see more efficiency from here.”

One key metric for banks’ future performance is employment levels, which have been robust in the U.S. As long as people keep working and paying their bills and business activity keeps up, credit quality will remain healthy, and the big banks will prosper as the year plays out, market observers said.

Steve Gelsi is a contributing writer based in the U.S.

Europe’s financial innovators are arriving in the US from more than one direction.

After moving to Spain from Los Angeles in January of last year, I quickly realized that much of the innovation in finance is happening in Europe. Meaning the seismic shifts in how consumers manage and spend money in their day-to-day lives.  

U.K.-based fintech Revolut filed for a U.S. bank charter with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. recently and expects to establish a banking presence there next year, complete with high-yield savings and checking accounts; access to stablecoins, multi-currency deposits; trading in stocks and crypto; and access to ATM networks (no physical branches). 

But as much as JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon seems to—all at once—love, respect, and envy Revolut, I’m not so sure the banking and fintech establishments are quite ready for the neobank’s full-scale entry into the U.S.

Enter Santander

As much as I believe Revolut — not to mention bunq — are building the future of finance in the U.S. from Europe, another, less-discussed name could present a significant challenge. Put another way: You can’t talk about neobanks upending personal finance in the U.S. without bringing Banco Santander SA into the conversation. 

Fintechs alone may not be the most meaningful competitive challenge to U.S. banks, in other words. 

Understanding why starts with one of the first questions Revolut skeptics and banking incumbents around the world love to float: Can a company become a primary financial relationship without being a major loan underwriter?

It’s difficult for a fintech to build a lending business, Felipe Peñacoba Martinez, CEO of Getnet Platforms Payments Hub (a Santander company) and former CIO at Revolut Bank (EU), told Global Finance. “Revolut is aware this takes time,” he said, “and they’re going slower than in other areas.” 

Despite serving tens of millions of customers globally and holding roughly $67 billion in customer balances, Revolut’s loan book remains a fraction of that figure. Then again, its consumer lending business is also growing rapidly: up 120% year over year to $2.9 billion, according to the company’s 2025 report. 

By banking standards, Revolut’s loan-to-deposit ratio remains small, but its lending segment is no longer theoretical. What matters is whether fintechs can scale banking capabilities faster than banks can scale digital ecosystems.

Peñacoba Martinez points to his own children, all three of whom use Revolut and don’t have a need the company can’t serve. “Big banks are seeing how neobanks are taking market share, especially among younger generations,” he says, and as these users eventually seek mortgages and more complex investment products, Revolut wants to serve those needs.   

At day’s end, lending conveniently trotted out as a competitive obstacle is the kind of question keepers of the status quo ask when confronted with disruptive business models. Radio people dismissed streaming. Early Amazon.com Inc. skeptics pointed to the online retailer’s lack of profitability. Blockbuster Video scoffed at a $50 million offer to buy Netflix Inc. History is full of established players evaluating the future through the lens of the present.

The lending question becomes more useful as a lens than a verdict. Is it easier for fintechs to build the lending, deposits, and infrastructure traditionally associated with banks? Or is it easier for banks to build the customer experiences, payment capabilities, and digital ecosystems that make fintechs disruptive?

The Openbank Advantage

Santander’s advantage goes beyond its balance sheet. Through Openbank, Getnet, and its broader technology transformation efforts, the bank appears to be assembling many of the same capabilities fintechs spent years developing from scratch and combining them with infrastructure that many challengers still outsource or access through partners. 

Traditional banks realize the threat from fintechs like Revolut and need to act, said Peñacoba Martinez, but the challenge lies in execution.

“We all know we need to build a modern tech stack that’s easy to integrate, but how do you do that?” he added. “Building is easy, but decades of history, legacy systems, and mindsets are the hard part. It’s very complex for incumbents due to time. Every year that passes, the situation is worse. The risk of breaking something is a greater challenge for big banks than for fintechs.”

Inside Santander, the approach has been to prove new systems internally before scaling them more broadly. As Peñacoba Martinez described it, the challenge isn’t simply building something new; it’s continuing to improve it after launch. Payments became the first testing ground at Santander, with roughly 70% of group payments now running through Getnet.

The same logic applies to Openbank. Santander Executive Chair Ana Botín has made clear that she wants the platform to reach tens of millions of accounts in the coming years as “a digital bank with branches,” including in the U.S.

When I asked Peñacoba Martinez if these efforts effectively place Santander in direct competition with Revolut, his answer was straightforward: yes.

For all the attention paid to Revolut’s 2027 full-scale launch in the U.S., one of the more consequential battles may involve two companies moving toward similar destinations from opposite directions.  

Lifestyle Brands vs. Global Banks

One is a fintech building bank capabilities but marketing itself as a lifestyle brand; the other, a global bank adopting the mindset of a fintech while leveraging advantages fintechs have yet to replicate. The lesson for incumbents in the U.S. and around the world: neither of these models exists in isolation. 

Revolut, Santander, bunq, Nubank, and others are part of a broader wave of foreign challengers attempting to capture market share in the world’s most lucrative banking market. 

Having helped build products inside Revolut and now helping modernize a global banking group, Peñacoba Martinez has seen both journeys firsthand. Listening to him describe them, one conclusion becomes difficult to ignore: time tends to help one side and hurt the other. 

Like a young athlete, fintechs have room to grow aggressively from scratch; they don’t think about limits. For older players, every year increases the pressure to keep up without breaking what they have already established.

There’s no question that the competitive threat to U.S. finance from abroad is real. What remains murky is whether U.S. banks truly appreciate how many directions it’s coming from. 

Rocco Pendola is a contributing correspondent based in Spain.