With Donald Trump emerging as the clear winner in the US presidential election, banks around the world are assessing what it means for them – and none more than in the US itself.
One of Wall Street’s main points of contention with the Democrats has been their perceived hostility to M&A, not least in the Department of Justice (DoJ). Some bankers acknowledge that the environment may not get any easier under Trump, believing that his choice of running mate, JD Vance, would mean a second Trump administration is less sympathetic to dealmaking than the first. Others note Vance will merely be vice-president.
These questions are vital not just for investment bankers but also for bank chief executives and others in charge of strategy at commercial banks, especially beyond the biggest banks. Any acceleration in bank consolidation will be vital for most banks’ future ability to compete with the likes of Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase.
Despite earlier waves of M&A, the US still has more than 4,000 banks, many deeply rooted in their immediate local community. Some prominent politicians, above all Elizabeth Warren – a Democrat who sits on the Senate banking committee – have frequently voiced deep misgivings about the value of bank M&A for consumers.
According
