Britain’s national airline might have been expected to choose a UK-based fund manager to look after £21.5bn of pension assets. But in 2021, British Airways turned to New-York based BlackRock to run the money.

It was not the only one. BAE Systems, a defence contractor, followed suit by giving Goldman Sachs its £23bn mandate. This year, Shell asked BlackRock to manage €26bn of its pension assets.

The recent US domination of so-called outsourced chief investment officer (OCIO) services is a particularly visible sign of a much broader shift in global money management. Very large US groups are building ever larger beachheads in the UK and Europe — gathering assets, squeezing fees and shaking up the market.

The Americans are profiting as European investors shift money into low-cost tracking funds and exchange traded funds and unlisted alternatives, including private equity, private credit and infrastructure.

Buoyed by rising fee income from vibrant US securities markets, the very largest US asset managers and the asset management arms of Wall Street banks such as JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs outcompete their European and British rivals in part because they can spread technology and compliance costs across a larger asset base.

“Competition for the largest mandates in the UK, Europe and the Middle East is increasingly between American firms,” says Fadi Abuali, co-chief executive of Goldman Sachs Asset Management International (GSAM). “We have scale, capacity to grow and we’re resilient.”

As the world’s largest pension funds and endowments have started consolidating their business with fewer managers, the US groups’ size and diverse product offerings have given them an edge.

“Running an asset manager is becoming more and more expensive, so you need a big-scale platform that is managed very efficiently,” says Rachel Lord, head of BlackRock’s international business. “If you have a platform that can offer a lot of different things across active, index, technology and private markets, you can win.”

Over the past decade, assets under management by US groups in the UK and Europe more than doubled from $2.1tn in 2014 to $4.5tn as of the end of September, according to ISS Market Intelligence. In addition to substantially outpacing European rivals, the Americans are making further inroads in areas where they are globally dominant. These include UK tracker funds, where they now manage 59 per cent of all assets, and in the fast-growing active ETF sector where they control three-quarters of the market. 

Many UK asset managers are also on the wrong side of long-term structural trends, says Jon Godsall, co-lead of McKinsey’s global wealth and asset management practice. Actively-managed funds investing in domestic equities — historically their bread and butter — are in decline, and mid-sized money management firms around the world are struggling.

Godsall adds that what appears to be “a reticence to adapt in the face of overwhelming evidence of the need to adapt” has been a far bigger factor in their decline than fears about the City of London’s standing in international capital markets, or the UK’s decision to leave the EU.

“When I talk to American managers, they have no problem with the City of London or Brexit — it’s going very well for them in the UK.”

The pending return of Donald Trump to the White House, along with Republican control of Congress and a conservative-leaning Supreme Court, is propelling US momentum further.

Shares in US banks, alternative investment groups and some listed asset managers like BlackRock have soared on the prospect of deregulation, tax cuts and a boom in dealmaking. The industry harbours hopes that the Trump administration will make it easier to sell alternative investments including private equity, credit and cryptocurrencies to individual investors — all of which will increase the size, power and confidence of US asset managers.

“I’ll whisper it because it’s embarrassing, but Trump’s return is actually really good for business,” says a top asset management executive at a US firm. “We’re energised, we’re winning business, we feel good. Clients feel that.” 

By contrast, the UK’s listed asset managers look beleaguered. Schroders and Abrdn have both appointed new bosses to try to boost flagging share prices and cut costs. In continental Europe, asset managers are increasingly trying to pull off big mergers to gain scale in the face of the Americans.

“[Clients] don’t want to talk to losers”, says the US executive “and they certainly don’t want to give their money to someone who may not be here in 10 years.”

The march of US asset managers into the UK and Europe echoes a similar phenomenon that played out decades earlier in stock trading and investment banking.

Margaret Thatcher’s “Big Bang” deregulation of the UK’s financial markets in 1986 stripped away the demarcation between banking, advising corporate clients and share trading. Over the following two decades, venerable City institutions such as Smith New Court, Barclays de Zoete Wedd and Cazenove were swallowed up by bigger US rivals and their European imitators such as Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank and UBS.

That paved the way for the American full-service investment banking model — where everything from sales and trading to research and mergers and acquisitions advice are brought under one roof — to conquer Europe. US institutions now dominate investment banking and have been stealing market share from European rivals for over a decade.

Money management is much less concentrated than investment banking, and some mid-sized US groups are facing similar structural headwinds to their peers across the Atlantic. But the best positioned US asset managers are now powering past European rivals, fuelled by robust growth at home and a strong dollar, which has supported international expansion.

Total assets under management in North America grew 16 per cent year on year in 2023, versus 8 per cent in Europe and 2 per cent in the UK, according to consultants BCG. 

“This scale advantage allows US firms to invest more substantially in absolute terms in technology and operations, enhancing their competitiveness and allowing them to outcompete local European players,” says Dean Frankle, managing director and partner at BCG in London.

“Slower growth and market fragmentation have presented challenges for European players, who face increased pressure to consolidate and compete.”

A signature deal of the post-Big Bang era was Schroders’ sale of its investment banking division to Citigroup for £1.35bn in 2000. One of the last great dynastic British finance houses, Schroders was also one of a few homegrown investment banks that could compete for big-ticket M&A deals. But its board opted to double down on asset management, which uses less capital and generates reliable fee income.

That decision coincided with the high-water mark of its clients’ allocations to equities. In 1999, UK pension funds invested three-quarters of their assets in equities, with around half going into UK shares and a quarter into non-UK, according to data compiled by New Financial. 

A series of changes to tax and accounting rules led pension schemes to shift assets out of equities and into government bonds. By 2021, the average UK pension fund had cut its equity allocation to 27 per cent — with just 6 per cent in UK shares, sucking capital out of the domestic markets and depriving asset managers of their core client base.

That long-term trend was followed by the UK’s departure from the EU. “Brexit made the UK asset managers not European,” says a second top US executive. “Therefore they didn’t have a backyard of significance and had no real competitive advantage against the American firms.”

London will remain the asset management centre for Europe, but the winners will increasingly be global firms, mostly the Americans

These UK-specific challenges were compounded by global trends, such as the shift from active to passive investing and the associated downward pressure on fees. As the number of quoted companies steadily fell, clients wanted more access to private markets, while large institutional investors tended to want closer relationships with fewer asset managers. 

“Most UK players were left with neither global scale, captive distribution nor fast-growing product mixes,” says Huw van Steenis, partner and vice-chair at management consultancy Oliver Wyman, adding that merging with each other is unlikely to rescue them.

The second US executive describes the independent UK asset management industry as “largely irrelevant” and “something circling the drain”.

“London will remain the asset management centre for Europe, but the winners will increasingly be global firms, mostly the Americans.” 

Ironically, the current US success was part-made in Britain. In June 2009, Barclays sold its California-based index fund business to BlackRock. The UK bank netted $13.5bn from the disposal — but BlackRock got the ETF and tracker fund platform that would power its global success.

At around the same time, Vanguard arrived in the UK and began shaking up the retail investment market with the lowest-cost tracking funds that Europe had ever seen.

The march of US managers was also aided by regulatory changes, such as the 2013 UK ban on commissions to advisers for the sales of financial products.

“It set the stage for us to have a low-cost offer in the market,” says Jon Cleborne, Vanguard’s head of Europe, of what was termed the retail distribution review. “Advisers really transitioned from having a commission-based product model to a fee-based planning model,” benefiting low-cost providers such as Vanguard. 

The biggest US managers also benefited from simply being large. “Scale is increasingly important [for] supporting the technology spend, the brand spend, and supporting the regulatory, legal and compliance framework that you need,” says David Hunt, chief executive of New Jersey-based PGIM, which manages $1.3tn. “If you don’t have a lot of assets it gets hard to stay in the competitive war.”

“You need to be able to invest through the cycle, through periods when profits are down and markets are tough,” says Patrick Thomson, chief executive of JPMorgan Asset Management in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. “To be able to do that you need to have a very diversified business.”

The largest players can also provide more services, from high-fee private markets products to risk management and technology services. BlackRock’s institutional money management software Aladdin, for instance, raked in just shy of $1.5bn in revenues last year.

“The things that make BlackRock and [Goldman Sachs] formidable competitors are the things they offer that are not just asset management,” says Stefan Hoops, chief executive of Germany’s DWS, referring to Aladdin and OCIO.

The big US players also have local sales forces who work with European and UK financial advisers to explain the plethora of new investment products. 

“Go back 10 or 20 years ago, the complexity of the product and the amount of choice was significantly less,” says Caroline Randall, a UK-based member of the management committee at Los Angeles-based Capital Group. “You have to deliver value beyond investment, and we can offer to help our clients with that.”

Brexit also allowed some US groups, most notably BlackRock, to steal a march because they had already started building up domestic sales forces in major continental markets as well as the UK, while their rivals relied on EU passporting rules. 

The momentum of the big US groups is one of the factors forcing European banks, insurers and independent rivals to evaluate their commitment to asset management.

Like Schroders did in 2000, they are weighing up whether to double down, partner with others in pursuit of scale, focus on a specialism where barriers to entry are higher, or exit the sector.

“You need scale, you can’t get to $1tn [of assets under management] and feel that things are good now,” says a banker who works on deals in the sector.

“The squeeze is no longer just felt by the mid-sized European players,” says Vincent Bounie, senior managing director at Fenchurch Advisory Partners. “Firms need capital . . . to support product development, gain efficiencies and reposition strategically towards areas of growth.” 

Thomas Buberl, chief executive of French insurance group Axa, told the Financial Times after agreeing a deal to combine its asset management business with that of BNP Paribas, that “it is the only way to compete in a heavily consolidated fund management sector that is increasingly dominated by big global firms.”

Several other insurers are in talks to combine their asset management units with those of others, though such deals are difficult to execute. The FT revealed recently that Germany’s Allianz and French asset manager Amundi had paused long-running talks over a potential transaction because of disagreements over how best to structure it.

In the UK, Legal & General’s new chief executive António Simões has combined its substantial index tracking funds business with its private markets offering to create a single asset management division with £1.2tn in assets. “The barbell is where the asset management industry has gone: passive and private markets,” says Simões, adding that he is “considering bolt-on acquisitions, particularly in private markets and the US”.

The strength of the US groups makes them players in European consolidation as well. Goldman Sachs significantly expanded its European presence with its €1.6bn purchase in 2021 of Dutch insurer NN Group’s investment management arm — and beating Germany’s DWS in the process. 

Even as the European firms bulk up, their US rivals continue to steam ahead. Seven of the 10 fastest-growing fund groups in Europe this year are American, according to Morningstar. In the third quarter alone, BlackRock recorded $221bn of global net inflows — more than the entire European investment funds industry put together.

The US executive warns that scale alone is not a panacea. “The problem with most mergers in our industry is a failure to see that the compelling rationale must be centred around the client,” he says, adding that merging on the grounds that “we need to be big and pan-European to compete with the Americans” is not enough.

A New York judge ruled that former President Donald Trump cannot claim presidential immunity to overturn his felony conviction.

The decision from Judge Juan Merchan marks a temporary setback for the president-elect, who is set to return to the White House in January, and has recently secured a few wins including the indefinite delay of his sentencing in the case.

A New York jury earlier this year found Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifyi business records to conceal a $130,000 hush money payment to adult-film star Stormy Daniels, in order to influence the 2016 presidential contest.

Merchan, who presided over the trial earlier this year, still has to decide whether the trial should be dismissed due to Trump’s upcoming inauguration, as Trump’s lawyers have requested.

A Trump spokesperson criticized Merchan’s ruling, saying it violated the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity.

Following his conviction in May, the Supreme Court ruled in a separate case that presidents have immunity for official acts they take in office.

“This lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed, as President Trump must be allowed to continue the Presidential Transition process, and execute the vital duties of the presidency, unobstructed by the remains of this, or any other, Witch Hunt,” said spokesman Steven Cheung in a statement.

Trump’s legal team had argued that various testimony in the hush-money case – such as that of former White House employees – and evidence – like statements made while Trump was president – violate the Supreme Court ruling that excludes official acts from prosecution.

But Merchan said the criminal charges stemmed from Trump’s “private acts” prior to him becoming president. And he argued Trump’s communications about the payments while he was in the White House did not touch on any official acts.

The decision that Trump does not have immunity in this New York state case comes after the U.S. Department of Justice signaled it would take steps to wind down two federal prosecutions against Donald Trump, focused on his alleged efforts to cling to power after the 2020 election and accusations he hoarded classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort. The DOJ has a longstanding policy against prosecuting a sitting president.

Trump became the first former or sitting U.S. president to be tried on criminal charges and convicted. Trump’s legal team received several wins this summer and fall when Merchan postponed Trump’s sentencing twice — the second time purposefully until after Election Day to avoid appearing politically motivated. Trump may be the first president to enter the White House as a convicted felon should his efforts to dismiss the case fail.

But prosecutors in the case argued that since Trump’s lawyers are seeking dismissal only due to the election results, invalidating the jury’s verdict could harm public confidence in the justice system. Still, they proposed staying proceedings until after Trump finishes his presidential term.

Merchan has yet to rule on the motion to dismiss.

Trump’s lawyers are likely to appeal Merchan’s Monday ruling, and have also sought to dismiss the case on other grounds.

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Your guide to what the 2024 US election means for Washington and the world

Donald Trump said on Monday that he believed Turkey was behind the rebel group that toppled Syria’s dictator Bashar al-Assad, claiming Ankara had mounted an “unfriendly takeover” of its neighbour.

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was “a smart guy and he’s very tough”, the US president-elect said at a news conference in Florida, and had made Ankara the most important foreign actor in Syria since Assad’s fall.

“They wanted it for thousands of years, and he got it. Those people who went in are controlled by Turkey,” Trump said. “Turkey did an unfriendly takeover without a lot of lives being lost.”

The president-elect’s comments came as the US carried out air strikes against Isis fighters in Syria, and just days after secretary of state Antony Blinken said Washington was in contact with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Islamist group that led a lightning blitz on Damascus earlier this month, forcing Assad to flee the country.

Foreign policy analysts said Trump — who will replace Joe Biden as US president next month — was sending a message to Erdoğan, with whom he has enjoyed a turbulent relationship.

“Trump has issued a warning of sorts to the new rulers of Syria and their patrons, which is ‘rule carefully, because we are watching’,” said Jonathan Schanzer, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think-tank.

Turkey’s relations with HTS have been complex. It has not directly backed the group but has supported others that co-ordinated with HTS in its lightning offensive.

“I think Turkey is going to hold the key to Syria,” Trump said.

Trump’s comments about Erdoğan reflected the US president-elect’s tendency to keep world leaders on their toes, a foreign policy expert said.

Erdoğan might have thought Trump would be an “ace in the hole”, said Jon Alterman, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think-tank. But the Turkish leader would be “not sure exactly where he sits” following Trump’s comments, giving the US’s incoming leader leverage.

Trump and Erdoğan fused personal camaraderie and geopolitical friction during the US leader’s first term as president. Tensions escalated over Turkey’s purchase from Russia of the S-400 missile defence system, which ended in Turkey’s ejection from the US’s F-35 fighter jet programme. Ankara’s detention of American pastor Andrew Brunson in 2016 prompted Trump to blacklist Erdoğan advisers and threaten punitive economic sanctions.

Brunson’s release thawed relations between the leaders. Turkey later capitalised on Trump’s 2019 decision to withdraw US forces from northern Syria, leaving Kurdish forces exposed to Turkish military action.

Ties between Washington and Ankara have improved more recently, according to Turkish officials and western diplomats, despite some tension triggered by Erdoğan’s criticism of Israel over its Gaza offensive.

Turkey also eventually backed Sweden’s accession to Nato earlier this year, after which Washington approved Ankara’s purchase off American F-16 fighter jets. American officials have also hailed Turkey’s role in a prisoner exchange between the US and Russia this year and Ankara’s fight against terrorist groups, including Isis.

Turkey has, however, pushed back strongly against Washington’s support for the Syrian Democratic Forces, a Kurdish-led group that Ankara considers indistinguishable from separatists that have battled the Turkish state.

Washington sees the SDF as a crucial partner in keeping Isis from significantly reconstituting in Syria in the political vacuum following Assad’s fall.

The US has been carrying out air strikes in Syria against Isis, including on Monday when US Central Command said strikes killed 12 fighters operating in former regime- and Russian-controlled areas.

Additional reporting by Andrew England in London and Adam Samson in New York