
Is it game over for Britain's challenger banks?
Ever since Gordon Brown unleashed Sir Donald Cruickshank to review the competitiveness of the banking sector in 1998, the dominance of the 'big four' banks has been on the minds of Britain's politicians.
Brown's successor, Alistair Darling, even used the aftermath from the 2008 bailouts to proclaim the creation of new high street banks, which would take on the dominant players — Lloyds, NatWest, HSBC and Barclays — and boost competition for consumers.
This sparked the rise of the 'challengers' — a mixed cohort of high-street banks, which at various times have tried to unseat the giants. Back in the 2000s, one of them, Halifax, famously insisted it would 'eat the big four's lunch'.
But, after more than 25 years of effort, it seems it could be game over for challenger banks.
Last week, Sabadell, the Spanish owner of TSB, stunned the City by confirming it had received potential bids for the British bank it bought ten years ago. That came just hours after reports that Metro Bank had received a takeover approach from a private equity house.
• What a TSB bank sale could mean for customers
It led the ratings agency Moody's to warn that consolidation in the sector would 'ease the competitive pressure on the big UK banks'.
That also included the Nationwide Building Society which has bolstered its status by its £2.9 billion swoop on the challenger bank Virgin Money last year. That deal came in a year when the sector was also rocked by Coventry Building Society buying the Co-operative Bank for £780 million.
Benjamin Toms, banks analyst at RBC Capital Markets, said: 'While there has been a lot of noise about trying to level the playing field with the challenger banks taking more of the market, that hasn't really happened.'
So why have the challengers lost their way? And is anything coming to replace them?
Statistics produced by Cruickshank in 1998 are often used to explain the uphill battle they face. He found the big four banks had a 68 per cent share of the current account market. But by 2010, their dominance had risen to 73 per cent because the early challengers themselves had to be rescued by the bigger players, particularly Halifax, which was gobbled up by Lloyds.
It goes to the heart of the problem, according to Barbara Casu, professor of banking at Bayes Business School. 'It's very difficult for the challenger banks and to a certain extent the smaller building societies to compete because of the market share of the big banks,' she said.
Some of the challengers did get a boost from the banking crisis, as Darling had promised. Virgin Money took on parts of the nationalised Northern Rock while the Spanish bank Santander bought bits of the troubled building societies-turned-banks Alliance & Leicester and Bradford & Bingley.
The crisis also gave TSB, which was set up as the Trustee Savings Bank in 1810, a new lease on life when the European Union demanded that Lloyds spin out a new branch network in return for its taxpayer bailout. TSB was floated on the stock market in 2014 before being bought by Sabadell a year later.
But some reckon they squandered the opportunity to compete. Edward Firth, banks analyst at KBW, reckoned that some of the challengers 'weren't particularly well run and made a number of strategic errors'.
Metro Bank, for example, launched in 2010 as the first new bank on the high street for 100 years. But it has never recovered from an accounting crisis in 2019, which ultimately led to its rescue in 2023 by the Colombian billionaire Jaime Gilinski Bacal.
Even after rallying last week on reports of a potential bid from Pollen Street Capital, its £850 million market value is still a fraction of the £3.5 billion it was worth at its peak.
Firth also blamed regulations requiring smaller banks to hold more capital as a ratio than larger ones for holding back challengers. 'That makes it very difficult for anybody to ever challenge because you're not playing on a level field.'
He said the big four's dominance in current accounts also mattered, because these accounts pay very low rates of interest — if any — and so provide these banks with a cheap way to finance their lending.
One of the many reviews into the sector recommended the creation of a current account switching service to make it easier for customers to move between banks.
But while the big four's share of current accounts had fallen to 64 per cent by 2022, according to the latest analysis by the Financial Conduct Authority, it was not the challengers who benefited.
Instead, it was the digital banks such as Monzo and Starling that gained market share, from about 1 per cent in 2018 to 8 per cent by 2022. This seems to be the result of customers opening additional current accounts, as the FCA found that the number of accounts had increased by 15 per cent over four years. On average, each adult in the UK now has 1.9 current accounts.
Casu at Bayes said this also reflected the dominance of the big four: 'People have not shifted entirely to challenger banks. They use them as e-wallets, to travel on the Tube or buy online, but they don't put their whole salary in there.'
The big four have also staged a fightback by spending billions on their own apps. At the same time, they have cut costs, particularly by closing branches. Barclays, for instance, has reduced its network by a remarkable 77 per cent over six years.
The digital banks still outcompete the big four when it comes to customer service.
The Chase app — the retail banking arm of JP Morgan, America's biggest bank — is the highest rated of any of the banks for customer service.
Karim Haji, head of financial services at KPMG, said it was important not to see competition in the narrow terms of the traditional challengers. There are also competitors targeting specific sectors, such as buy-to-let mortgages, payments services, and business banking.
Still, the potential takeover of TSB would be a key moment in the story of the challenger banks.
This week the pressure is on to find a suitor as TSB's fate is tied up in a hostile takeover of its parent Sabadell by Spanish rival BBVA.
The Spanish government is scheduled to announce on Tuesday whether it will sanction the takeover of Sabadell. But if Sabadell agrees a deal for TSB it would need to be put to a shareholder vote under Spanish rules — delaying any deal. It could also scupper the BBVA takeover by altering the financial terms.
Hence, the speculation in the City that news of the potential sale was fortuitous and that if any formal bid was going to be made it needed to happen quickly, with expectations that Friday is an informal deadline for any approaches.
It is rumoured that the Spanish owner is seeking £2 billion for the bank but it is not clear how easy that will be to achieve. Despite speculation about bidding wars for Co-op Bank and Virgin Money last year, no rival offers emerged for those banks and TSB has been subjected to repeated takeover speculation.
Analysts said that all of the big four would take a look at TSB, but Lloyds seems an unlikely bidder given it was forced to sell off TSB in the first place. NatWest has ruled itself out.
Barclays, however, is known to be seeking expansion in the UK. TSB would provide a 2 per cent market share of deposit taking and mortgage lending.
While any deal might trigger the need for the Competition and Markets Authority to look at the transaction, few think it would stand in the way, particularly in light of the government's pro-growth agenda. Neil Baylis, partner at the law firm CMS, said: 'If you have a story that you're basically doing something that is good for the UK economy, then you're in a better position [to do deals] that you've been in for quite some years.'
Other potential bidders could come from the reinvigorated building society sector, with Yorkshire's name in the rumour mill. As it stands, Nationwide has already bolstered its position as competitor to the big four and this wave of consolidation could result in a new 'big five' or even a 'big six'.
Nationwide looked at TSB and other challengers before bidding for Virgin Money last year, and that deal is still being integrated. On the day of Nationwide's results this month, when asked about further deals, chief executive Debbie Crosbie, who was made a dame this month, said she was 'super focused' on Virgin Money. 'You never say never in the future, but right now we're focused on making the most of this acquisition,' Crosbie said.
Nationwide claims to have a relationship with one in three Britons after the Virgin deal and is promising a major expansion into the business banking arena, where the big four also dominate.
Intriguingly, Santander is said to have expressed an interest in TSB. This has surprised some in the City given speculation that chief executive Ana Botin was looking to exit the UK market, something she was forced to deny this year.
While Santander has already claimed a slot as the fifth-biggest bank in Britain since arriving on the scene with the takeover of Abbey National in 2004, it has struggled to achieve the dominance it craved. Buying TSB might edge it closer to that goal.
A sign, perhaps, that the game to challenge the big four is not over yet.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Times
18 minutes ago
- Times
I'm grieving and I made a mistake, now my £8k inheritance is lost
My mother died recently, which was the last in a sequence of horrible events after the death of my son and my own cancer diagnosis. Mum left me a small inheritance of £8,370 which was sent to my NatWest account. I planned to transfer it to an account that my husband holds with Lloyds so that he could buy a new boiler for our house. We are both pensioners and the money from my mum's estate is a lifeline to us. I made the transfer through my NatWest banking app, but I wasn't thinking clearly when I sent it instead to my Lloyds credit card, which had expired years ago. I know there's no excuse for this error but my mum's death was a dreadful experience. I am also still unwell and undergoing a series of investigations, which I hope goes some way to explain why I wasn't thinking clearly when I sent this payment. I immediately realised that the money had gone to the wrong account and felt sick to my stomach. I was in tears and spoke to NatWest to see if it could retrieve the money from Lloyds. Dealing with various Lloyds call centres has also been an absolute nightmare. I have been promised return calls that never materialise. I have been on hold for hours at a time while the operators vary from being pleasant to rude and impatient. I admit I've become frustrated and tearful at times but I have always explained the background of my situation. I made the mistake 12 days ago and the funds have now disappeared into the ether. No one will tell me where the money is or when I will get it back. I just want the money returned to my NatWest account. The stress of this situation is having a serious affect on my already poor health. I am terrified I won't see this money again, which is sorely and address supplied I was so sorry to hear of the devastating series of events that had turned your life upside down and can totally understand why you were not thinking clearly when you made this payment. Usually when money is sent to an expired account, the payment is retrieved and returned to the source. But your case was slightly different because there was an outstanding debt linked to your old credit card account. You told me this amounted to £60 but you had long forgotten about it. The problem was that this debt had been outstanding for so long that Lloyds had passed the account's history to a debt collection agency. This made it harder for Lloyds to track down the account. Plus, as the account was no longer active it was difficult for it to match your details to the information it had in its system. Thankfully when I stepped in Lloyds found the payment, and a few days later the money was back in your NatWest account. You have now also repaid the £60 debt. I felt that Lloyds should have helped you sooner, instead of leaving you in the lurch and giving you conflicting information at a time of extreme distress. It explained that because of the different teams involved in locating and returning the money, the information you were given depended on which team you were talking to. Those teams were not linked up, which is also why you didn't get the return calls you were promised. Lloyds said: 'We're here to help customers during difficult moments and we're sincerely sorry the support we gave our customer was not at the level she rightly expected. We've returned her money and made a payment in recognition that our service wasn't good enough on this occasion.' It gave you £250 compensation and has told you about several charities that may be able to give you some extra support. You said: 'It's clear that this was resolved as a result of your intervention so I can't thank you enough.' • Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts I work for a small business that sells memorabilia and over the past five years we have used a company called Bionic to manage our gas and electricity deals. When our contract is coming up for renewal, Bionic sends us quotes from suppliers and arranges the switch on our behalf. We had an email from Bionic last September telling us that our contract with British Gas was ending in May. We decided we would shop around and get our own quotes to see if we could get a better deal. I contacted Bionic online in September to say that we no longer needed its services. The agent said we should wait until the company had sent the next quote before opting out. When we got the quotes later that month, I got back in touch using its webchat service to confirm that we didn't want to go ahead with the renewal. I made it clear that we no longer wanted Bionic to act on our behalf and, based on this conversation, I assumed that our contract with the company had been terminated. A few months later I contacted British Gas to check when our energy deal ended, but was told that Bionic had already signed us up for another three-year deal with the company. We were not sent any information about this new deal and had given Bionic sufficient notice to terminate our contract, so we can't understand how this happened. I complained to Bionic but it said it had no record of the second webchat conversation in September where I had confirmed that we wanted to opt out. We have gone back and forth with Bionic to try and get it to cancel this contract that we never agreed to, but to no Lancashire • Compare exchange rates with our currency converter Bionic told me that it had sent you an email to confirm the new contract, but this was news to you and you said you never got the email. I was surprised that Bionic had signed you up to a three-year contract without you agreeing to it, but it explained that its digital renewal service is designed so that, unless a customer gets in touch to opt out, it assumes that they are happy with the quote and automatically signs them up. One Bionic email contained a quote and gave you three days to opt out. Once that deadline was reached, you were then locked into a contract and couldn't cancel. Three days seems like a very small window of time to opt out, which I imagine could catch out some people if they missed an email, yet Bionic said that suppliers can hold prices only for a short time. I also thought it was odd that Bionic finalised your contract eight months before your contract expired. It told me that it buys in bulk up to 12 months in advance and that, because of this, its customers get discounts on deals and are shielded from the price movements in the energy market. But regardless of this, you said you had made it clear that you wanted to cancel before the contract was finalised, so why didn't Bionic act on that? It showed me a transcript of the conversation on September 17 where you said you would like to cancel, but were urged to wait until the latest quotes had come through before confirming that you wanted to opt out. You said there was a subsequent webchat on September 26 where you had confirmed that you wished to cancel, but Bionic claimed it had no record of it. It also said that it has never lost a webchat and told me that it has 'complete and accurate records of all interactions'. • Online antique buyer lost my 91-year-old mum's treasures I could not work out why your version of events was different to Bionic's, but after I stepped in, it agreed to cancel your contract. Bionic said: 'Customers can choose to opt out of our digital renewal service at any time prior to finalisation of a replacement contract. As a gesture of goodwill and a demonstration of our commitment to ensuring customer satisfaction, we are prepared to arrange the cancellation of the replacement contract.' You have now arranged a contract directly with a supplier and said: 'This is the outcome that we wanted, but it is still very frustrating that we had to go through this ordeal in the first place. I believe this would not be resolved without your input, so thank you.' • £868,409 — the amount Your Money Matters has saved readers so far this year If you have a money problem you would like Katherine Denham to investigate email yourmoneymatters@ Please include a phone number


Times
18 minutes ago
- Times
‘No Carbon' Carney has left us high and dry
A bit like a sort of unreliable boyfriend. This, rather brilliantly, was the description of the record of the governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, by the Labour MP Pat McFadden, then a member of the Treasury select committee. That was in 2014, when the handsome Canadian, hailed as the 'George Clooney of central banking', was just a year into his tenure. McFadden was not talking about Carney's personal life: it was a metaphor for his policy of interest rate 'forward guidance', which was proving no sort of guidance at all. It was all over the place. In one respect, however, there was complete consistency in Carney's record over seven years as this country's most powerful unelected figure. He determinedly used his position to push Britain's banks into defunding the oil and gas industry, on the grounds that man-made climate change was of primary importance, and that financial institutions should base their investment decisions on the proposition that 80 per cent of the planet's hydrocarbon reserves were 'un-burnable'. His wise predecessor, Mervyn King, questioned the decision to make fighting climate change part of the Bank of England's remit, arguing that it made 'absolutely no sense' to add 'net zero' to its responsibilities, and that the Bank should stick to its knitting (interest rates and price stability) and leave environmental policies to the politicians. However, after leaving the Bank in 2020, Carney stuck to his mission. Under the auspices of the UN, he set up the Net Zero Banking Alliance, co-opting a large number of the world's biggest banks, representing $74 trillion in assets, into basing their lending on the mission to achieve 'net zero by 2050'. This, combined with the Labour government's policies under Ed Miliband, has meant that, as one British oil company executive put it to me, 'Not a single UK bank will lend to the North Sea industry'. The Net Zero Banking Alliance, more recently, has suffered an exodus of its American members, which have fallen in line with Donald Trump's agenda (summarised as 'Drill, baby, drill'). But surely, now that Carney has at last achieved his ambition of becoming Canadian prime minister, he is using all the power of that position to fight the good fight. Er, no. One reason Carney actually won the recent election was that he pledged to scrap the 'carbon tax' implemented by Justin Trudeau, for which he had previously proselytised. In office Carney has kept that promise — and in recent weeks gone much further in the opposite direction to everything he did when Bank of England governor. He appointed as energy minister a man who was an executive of an oil exploration and production company in Alberta, the heart of Canada's vast hydrocarbon reserves. These are known as the Alberta oil sands, covering an area the size of England and described some years ago by National Geographic (not a fan) as 'the world's largest industrial project … Especially north of Fort McMurray, where the boreal forest has been razed and bitumen is mined from the ground in immense open pits, the blot on the landscape is incomparable.' Carney has relaxed the emission restrictions that hampered this development (among others) and declared two weeks ago that he wanted Canada to be 'an energy superpower … in both clean and conventional energies. And, yes, that does mean oil and gas. It means using our oil and gas here in Canada to displace imports wherever possible, particularly from the United States. It makes no sense to be sending that money south of the border or across the ocean, so, yes, it also means more oil and gas exports, without question.' • The oil-rich Canadian cowboys who want their own Brexit What accounts for this remarkable transformation? Pure political expediency. Trudeau's policy had been profoundly unpopular, and the Conservative candidate, Pierre Poilievre, constantly referred to 'carbon tax Carney'. So, shamelessly disowning his own previous advocacy, Carney dumped it. Then there were the idiotic threats from Trump to annex Canada. While that will 'never happen' (to quote Carney), the prospect of Albertan secession was less improbable, as that province had been sorely provoked by the ecologically motivated threats to its hydrocarbon industry. Canada as a whole could not afford such a secession, and immediately after Carney's election win, the premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, introduced a bill to make a referendum on the matter much simpler to implement. She simultaneously called on Carney to make various concessions, which 'must include abandoning the unconstitutional oil and gas production cap'. He got the message. It was no coincidence that, as host of last week's G7 summit, Carney chose to hold it in Alberta. In the final communiqué, the topic of climate change was barely mentioned. To put it mildly, this has confused those who deeply admired Carney, not least in this country, for his previously passionate campaigning against oil and gas investment. But when I asked someone who worked closely with the man at the Bank of England what had happened to his old boss, he laughed and said: 'I must have told you before that Mark is fundamentally a trader, and therefore prepared to adapt principles to circumstances.' This was partly a reference to the fact that Carney's career before becoming a central banker was at Goldman Sachs. But what does this mean for the UK, still thoroughly enmeshed by the net zero policies in which Carney played such a central role? As Brendan Long, a Canadian energy analyst, told The Daily Telegraph last week: 'It means that while Canada's oil and gas industry is ramping up production under Carney, the UK remains aligned with the anti-oil and gas ideology he promoted when he was governor of the Bank of England.' Although Ed Miliband has now indicated a reversal of his opposition to the development of two North Sea fields, known as Rosebank and Jackdaw, the government is keeping its radical policy of banning all new exploration; across the median line, Norway has declared it will be boosting its North Sea exploration and production to the highest level since 2010. The crazy point, which fits in with the government's target but not the national interest, is that if we buy Norwegian gas, it does not come out of our 'carbon budget', as administered by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Similarly, when we've shut down our entire domestic oil and gas operation and are buying the Canadian hydrocarbons that Carney is now so keen to boost, we will make the (unelected) Climate Change Committee — charged with setting our carbon budgets and invigilating our progress to purity — happy. Not so much the British voters, I fear, come our own general election in a few years' time.


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: Dogma cares little for the state of Britain's economy
This country's economy is now in serious peril. This is not only because the Government is nudging at the very outer limits of what it can raise in tax and borrowing – though it is. It is also because that government is increasingly driven by ferocious dogma which cares little for such concerns. It may be that some in the Cabinet can see the danger, yet others do not even view it as a danger, but as an opportunity for yet more upheaval and dramatic change. The extraordinary developments of last week, in which the current very large Labour majority in Parliament brought about revolutions in abortion law and in assisted dying, are a warning that we are now in uncharted waters. It may possibly be that we have never had a government whose parliamentary forces are so radical. And the uncrowned queen of those forces is the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, increasingly influential and remarkably effective in the Commons and in Whitehall. It is true that there has always been a role for disruptive and troublemaking men and women near the top of the Labour Party. In the Tony Blair years, a similar position was filled by the late John Prescott, a majestic steam-powered Dreadnought originating in the (now remote) days of real class war. Let nobody underestimate Lord Prescott's considerable influence on the government he served. But Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the apparatus of New Labour kept him under control. In this case, it looks very much as if a confident and popular Ms Rayner has slipped free of any restraint by the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer. Her Employment Rights Bill, which is alarming businesses all over the country, would have been strangled at birth in the days of Blairism. The unions would have been told – rightly – that the public had grown heartily sick of their overmighty antics in the past, and did not want to see them given back the unrestrained power they had rightly lost. And while Sir Keir and his Chancellor Rachel Reeves must know this, they seem either powerless to act, or surprisingly untroubled by the danger of it. Speaking to The Mail on Sunday last week, Ms Reeves simply evaded the question of Ms Rayner's plans. When a successful businessman such as Sir James Dyson accuses you of being 'vindictive' and of 'waging a war on aspiration', you really ought to listen. It is on the success of such businessmen that any future economic growth must be based. Without that growth, where are the taxes to come from to pay for the advanced welfare state in which we live? So we must applaud the open letter to British businessmen sent out by Shadow Business Secretary Andrew Griffith, in which he does what Sir Keir and Ms Reeves will not do, and makes it plain just how dangerous Ms Rayner's plans are. He warns those business chiefs that they are being sleepwalked into disaster, that the Rayner Bill will fundamentally change the balance of power in workplaces, at huge cost. Coming after the idiocy of the National Insurance increase, this a grave threat to the jobs of trade union members, as well as to the economy as a whole. We can only hope that the Prime Minister and his Chancellor will listen and act, for the nation's sake as well as their own.