The banking business has fallen on hard times. The combination of persistent low interest rates, increasing regulatory compliance costs, and the rise of new competitors taking advantage of financial technologies (fintech for short) has produced, in Europe in particular, excess capacity and low profitability – and a strong temptation to merge.In a difficult market, mergers – by enabling banks to cut costs, share information-technology platforms, and increase market power, thereby relieving pressure on margins and rebuilding capital – make sense. And the banks know it. Witness the recent merger talks between Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank, both of which have faced huge declines in market capitalisation. 

So a wave of mergers may be on the way. The question is whether that approach really can solve banks’ problems and benefit society.

To be sure, mergers and acquisitions are not always a matter of escaping trouble. In fact, M&A activity – both the number and size of transactions – was picking up before the 2008 global financial crisis, including across borders within and beyond the eurozone. After peaking in 2007, such activity diminished, as domestic restructuring took precedence, particularly in countries such as Greece and Spain, which had to implement difficult adjustment programmes.

Moreover, the M&A approach does not always work. In October 2007, a consortium formed by the Royal Bank of Scotland, Fortis, and Banco Santander acquired ABN AMRO – the world’s biggest bank takeover to date. RBS and Fortis failed soon after and had to be rescued.

Nonetheless, supervisory bodies favour mergers to save banks in trouble. Competition authorities tend to be more reluctant, recognising the danger that large-scale mergers can consolidate an anti-competitive market structure, while creating even more “too big to fail” banks that may cause financial instability in the future. But they are often overruled or compelled to acquiesce.

The US Department of Justice agreed to the merger between Wells Fargo and Wachovia, among others, soon after the 2008 financial crisis, and the UK Office of Fair Trade was overruled in the merging of HBOS and Lloyds.

Competition is not the only source of merger-related tension among authorities. There is also friction between national supervisors, who prefer domestic mergers, and supranational supervisors, who prefer cross-border mergers within their jurisdiction (the eurozone, in the European Central Bank’s case). The benefits of cross-border consolidation are that market power is diluted in a large market, and more diversification is obtained, though these gains come at the price of weakened cost synergies.

银行业务已经陷入了困境。尤其在欧洲，利率的持续低迷，合规成本的走高，再加上熟练运用金融科技（简称fintech）的竞争者的增加，导致银行业产能过剩和利润率过低，成为银行合并的强大诱因。

在如此艰难的市场中，兼并具有极大的意义，它通过让银行降低成本，共享信息技术平台，提高市场影响力，从而减轻利润率过低的压力并且重建资本。银行当然也知悉这一手段。最近德意志银行和德国商业银行进行了兼并谈判，两者之前都曾面临市值的巨幅下跌。

 所以，兼并的浪潮可能已经开始。现在的问题是这种方法是否真能解决银行的问题，并造福社会。

 可以肯定的是，并购并不总是一个逃避问题的方式。事实上，并购活动（从数量和交易规模上来说）在2008年金融危机前就时有发生，包括欧元区内部的跨国并购和欧元区外部的并购活动。在2007年达到高峰后，这种方式开始减少，因为国内结构调整被摆在优先位置，特别是希腊和西班牙这些国家，它们不得不实施艰难的调整方案。

 尽管如此，监督机构乐于看到问题银行通过兼并的方式来解困。竞争主管机构通常不太同意这一做法，因为他们意识到大规模的兼并会促进一个反竞争的市场结构，同时创造更多的“大到不能倒”的银行，这将会导致未来金融的不稳定。但他们往往被否决或被迫默许收购行为。

 美国司法部（The US Department of Justice）于2008年金融危机后不久，同意了包括富国银行（Fargo；小编注是一家提供全能服务的银行，是全球市值最高的银行）和美联银行（Wachovia；小编注是向零售、经纪与公司客户提供金融服务的最大公司之一）的合并在内的一些兼并活动。同时，英国公平贸易办公室（UK Office of Fair Trade）哈关于利法克斯银行（HBOS；小编注隶属于苏格兰银行集团的英国最大的金融保险和抵押贷款银行）和劳埃德银行（Lloyds；小编注英国四大私营银行之一）的合并提议被否决。

 在主管部门之间，与合并相关的紧张局势不仅源自竞争。国内和跨国监管人员之间也同样有摩擦，国内监管人员更喜欢国内的兼并，而跨国家监管人员，则更倾向于自己的管辖范围内的跨境并购（如欧元区，欧洲央行的情况下）。跨境整合的好处是，市场力量在一个大型的市场中被稀释，而且更加多元化，尽管这些收益都是以削弱成本协同效益（小编注两家公司联合后节省的运营开支）为代价的。

The banking business has fallen on hard times. The combination of persistent low interest rates, increasing regulatory compliance costs, and the rise of new competitors taking advantage of financial technologies (fintech for short) has produced, in Europe in particular, excess capacity and low profitability – and a strong temptation to merge.

From the banks’ perspective, cross-border mergers may potentially be the better option, as long as they occur within a single supervisory framework. That way, they can benefit from common supervision and resolution. The eurozone’s new supervisory framework, supervised by the ECB and possessing a common resolution authority, reflects this recognition of the benefits of cross-border mergers.

But Europe lags when it comes to such mergers, owing to a broader lack of financial integration. Indeed, in the European Union, member countries’ own banks tend to be the dominant players in the domestic market – say, BNP Paribas in France or UniCredit in Italy. In the United States, by contrast, the same large banks – such as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo – tend to dominate a large number of different states.

US banks have had more space to diversify. For European banks – which must navigate vast differences in culture, language, and law in pursuing cross-border mergers – this has been much more difficult, especially because many of them also need to cut overcapacity drastically. As a result, in the near term, European banks are more likely to pursue domestic – or, at most, regional – consolidation.

For the United Kingdom, which voted to leave the EU in June, the situation is particularly complicated. The UK long benefited from an open policy on acquisitions by foreign banks, which allowed, for example, the Spanish Santander Group to bid for Britain’s Abbey National in 2001.

But "Brexit" will probably move supervision of UK-based banks out of the EU framework, raising the cost of cross-border deals and implying a loss to British consumers. As the UK banking sector’s competitiveness suffers, the temptation to return to the kind of light-touch regulation that enabled the crisis in the first place could intensify.

As for the rest of Europe’s banks, now might be the time to consider the merger option. Mergers are no silver bullet, but they could help to alleviate serious problems relatively quickly – though, in the longer term, the banks would still have to tackle the legacy of heavy and rigid structures and rebuild their reputations, with a strong focus on consumer service and fairness.

At the same time, if a merger strategy is to work for the good of society, competition must be preserved. If incumbents simply continue to get larger, blocking new competitors from entering the market, they will end up facing intrusive regulatory compliance programmes and higher capital requirements. New market entrants would have more flexibility and thus might be able to offer new, more appealing deals to customers.

This is why bank supervision and competition policy must work in tandem to ensure a level playing field. On one hand, regulations must apply to all firms performing banking functions, including new fintech institutions. On the other hand, implicit subsidies to too-big-to-fail banks must be dropped.

Bank mergers hold much promise, particularly in Europe. To realise their potential will require the right policy mix, focused on consumer protection and fair competition. Europe’s banks and banking authorities will need to step up their game.

银行业务已经陷入了困境。尤其在欧洲，利率的持续低迷，合规成本的走高，再加上熟练运用金融科技（简称fintech）的竞争者的增加，导致银行业产能过剩和利润率过低，成为银行合并的强大诱因。

从银行的角度来看，只要他们仍然处于同一个监管框架之内，跨国并购就可能是更好的选择。这样一来，他们可以受益于共同的监督和决议。欧元区新颁布的监管框架是由欧洲央行（ECB）监管的，他们共享一个决议机构。跨国并购带来的好处就可以在其中体现。

当涉及到这样的合并时，欧洲由于在更广的层面上缺乏金融一体化而体现出滞后性。事实上，欧盟成员国自己的银行往往是国内市场的主要参与者，法国巴黎银行（BNP Paribas in France）和意大利联合信贷银行（UniCredit）就是其中的例子。相反，在美国，类似的大银行如美国银行（Bank of America）、摩根大通（JPMorgan Chase）和富国银行（Wells Fargo），在不同的许多个州中都有重要影响。

美国的银行有更多的空间施展其多样性。但欧洲的银行在进行跨国并购时，必须要克服文化、语言和法律上的差异。而更大的困难在于，还有很多银行需要大幅度削减过剩的产能。其结果是，在短期内，欧洲银行更倾向于追求国内、最多至区域内的合并。

由于英国六月的脱欧公投结果，情况变得更加复杂。长期以来，英国从开放的境外银行收购政策中受益。西班牙桑坦德集团就是受益于此政策，在2001年竞购英国阿比国家银行（Britain’s Abbey National）。

但是，脱欧可能会使英国银行的监管脱离欧盟的框架，提高其跨境交易成本，造成英国消费者的损失。由于英国银行业竞争力下降，再次回到之前那种宽松的监管模式会让其一开始就面临危机。

 至于欧洲的其他银行，现在是他们考虑合并的时候了。合并不是银色子弹（小编注：意指解决银行业存在的问题的新方法），但这一方法可以比较迅速缓解严重的问题。即使从长远来看，银行仍然必须解决繁杂的组织结构这一遗留问题，以此重建自己的声誉。他们也需要着重关注消费者服务和公平性。

与此同时，如果合并的策略是为了社会的利益，那么这种竞争必须得以保留。如果现有市场参与者只想继续壮大自己，阻碍新的竞争者进入市场，那么他们最终将面临烦扰的合规程序和更多的资本要求。新的市场进入者将更具有灵活性，因此可能能够为客户提供全新且更具吸引力的业务。 

这就是为什么银行监管和竞争政策必须协同工作，以确保一个公平的竞争环境。一方面，规定必须适用于执行银行功能的所有企业，包括涉及金融科技（fintech）的新型机构。另一方面，对于那些因为太大而不会有倒闭风险的的银行，我们应该废除他们背后的隐性补贴。

银行合并被寄予很大希望。这现状在欧洲更甚。为了实现银行合并的价值，我们就需要正确的政策组合，着力于保护消费者权益环境。欧洲的银行和银行监管当局将需要迎接挑战。