Koller: It applies to most parts of the world. If you are a purely local business, in Europe or Asia, for example, then it’s less of an issue. But, if the US were to experience a severe recession, it would probably affect everybody. And then, of course, there are those businesses that are directly impacted—companies that export, import or compete with US companies. A lot of companies, even if they appear to be local, they’re competing with US-based companies, or they’re trading with US-based companies. So, the impact is felt far beyond the US.

GF: Are more companies growing frustrated with US volatility and seeking opportunities in Europe and the APAC region?

Koller: For most companies, it takes years to build or to change strategies from a geographic perspective. Some of the companies I talked to are thinking about these things, but, at this stage, you don’t just break into a market in a couple of months. If you want to build a business in a new country, or if you want to change your supply chain, these things take time. So it depends. If your supply chain is highly specialized, that could take years to restructure. If your supply chain is simple or there are lots of other producers, and you can switch from one country to another, that’s a little bit easier.

Bringing things back to the US is also very time consuming—no matter what industry it is. People are thinking about it and making plans, but for the most part, the timeframe of any kind of major structural change is fairly long, and you don’t want to commit to it until you probably know more about what’s going on.

GF: In this latest edition of your book, did you touch upon digital assets or how companies are building their own reserves?

Koller: We don’t address it, and I’ll tell you why. For the most part, a lot of what people are talking about is not a currency. We call it a cryptocurrency, but it’s not a currency. It is a speculative investment. And the nature of these speculative investments is unlike a stock or a bond. There’s no inherent valuation. We won’t know what the answer is eventually. It’s purely a function of supply and demand of investors and sentiment for many of these cryptocurrencies. It’s like investing in vintage automobiles or fine art. It’s nothing more than that. As far as I’m concerned, that’s why we don’t touch on it, because you can’t do anything with it, and then I wouldn’t understand why a company would put money into that. Because you’re really betting on market sentiment. You’re betting on other investors wanting to get into that market and pushing up the price.

GF: What about stablecoins?

Koller: Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies tied to real-world assets, usually the US dollar or another fiat currency. The more reputable ones are backed 1:1 by actual reserves. From a corporate valuation perspective, they’re not particularly interesting. If a cryptocurrency is simply pegged to the dollar but involves additional transaction costs, it doesn’t offer much advantage over using dollars directly.

There’s been talk for decades about something replacing the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency—whether the euro, the yuan, or others—but those alternatives face their own challenges. For a currency to be viable for transactions, especially everyday purchases, it needs to have a stable value. That’s why something backed by the dollar or another relatively stable fiat currency is necessary.

However, stablecoins don’t really factor into the strategic decision-making of most companies or investors unless they’re directly involved in currency or cryptocurrency markets. And that’s a niche area I’m hesitant to speculate on.

GF: Are there certain basic mistakes that happen at a company that hurts valuation or leads to their failure?

Koller: It’s rarely that a company is fundamentally unsound. The real issue is often the gap between how companies value themselves and how the market values them. Many CEOs and CFOs believe their companies are undervalued, but when we analyze hundreds of companies each year—using discounted cash flow models and peer comparisons—we usually find valuations are within 10% of fair value. That margin is small and can fluctuate day to day.

Companies, on the other hand, often have financial projections that are inconsistent with their market values, because the market doesn’t give them credit for things that they hope to achieve, unless they have a strong track record. For example, if an industry grows at 4% annually and a company projects 6% growth, the market may only price in 4%. If the company hits just that, it’s not a failure—investors never expected more. It’s not a disaster from a valuation perspective, because investors didn’t expect that anyway.

The bigger issue is the disconnect we saw in the dotcom bubble. There’s sometimes a disconnect, you might argue, with some of the big mega [magnificent seven] stocks. One of the characteristics I look for, in terms of potential overvaluation, is who are the investors in a company. And, in particular, what share of retail investors? And if you see a very high share of retail investors inside in a stock, that is often a sign of overvaluation. Retail investors don’t crunch the numbers. They typically buy based on emotion and hype. It may be a great company, but that doesn’t mean you should pay 100 times earnings for it.

GF: Could that also complicate M&A strategies?

Koller: Yes, although that does create an opportunity. Very few companies have the guts to take advantage of it. If my shares are overvalued, that’s the time when you can use those shares to buy something, and that’s great. We’ve seen a couple of those, but not that often.

GF: Over the eight editions on valuation, what’s the most surprising change that you’ve seen in how companies wrestle with value?

Koller: The most surprising thing isn’t how much companies have changed, but how little they have. And it’s not just because we’ve written a book, but other academics have done research. Many companies remain too short-term oriented. Large firms still try to cost-cut their way to success, which only works for a limited time. And while innovation continues, it often comes from smaller companies rather than the big players.

One positive shift has been the steady decline of conglomerates. More companies are breaking themselves up into simpler, more focused entities. This trend, certainly evident in the US and to some extent in Europe as well, has improved management effectiveness and is favored by investors who value focus and clarity. That’s probably the most meaningful change—the breaking up of complex companies into smaller ones.

GF: Do the recent headlines of Google and Meta being under scrutiny and possibly broken up exemplify that trend?

Koller: I can’t speak specifically to Google or Meta, because their business units are more interconnected than, say, a company making both valves and toothpaste—where there’s clearly no synergy. What matters isn’t size but complexity, especially when businesses don’t share customers, technologies, suppliers, or distribution channels. That’s when it makes sense to consider breaking them up.

More broadly, while the trend toward focused companies has been positive, many firms remain too short-term oriented. They often blame the stock market, but that’s not entirely fair. Our research shows that about 75% of investors—whether retail, index funds, or institutions—are long-term holders. The problem is that companies tend to pay too much attention to the loudest voices, which are often short-term traders. There’s still a lot of room for companies to take a more long-term approach, and that’s work that continues.

GF: In past editions or in this new edition on valuations, has there been any sort of trend or surprising development you noticed?

Koller: One major trend we’ve seen is the globalization of equity markets over the last 35 years. Today, the shareholder-base of large companies in Europe, Japan, and Taiwan often looks very similar to their US peers. As an individual investor, you can easily buy hundreds of international funds or even individual foreign stocks—and the same goes for investors abroad buying US equities. So, from a capital markets perspective, things have truly globalized.

However, corporate behavior still varies by region. On average, European companies continue to earn lower returns on capital than their US counterparts—though the gap has narrowed, and some of the best-performing companies in various industries are European. In Asia, there’s still a noticeable emphasis on size and prestige over value creation. I’m surprised that focus persists. While it’s slowly shifting, many companies still prioritize growth and scale rather than returns, which often results in lower valuations compared to US firms—unless they’re high-growth global competitors.

GF: What will modern finance look like in the future?

Koller: I’m hopeful that AI will help us value companies more effectively. Right now, it’s good at tasks like summarizing and researching quickly, and over time it may become more capable. But while tech—and AI in particular—makes up a large share of the stock market, it still represents a relatively small part of the broader economy. Most people still need housing, food, clothing, travel—those businesses aren’t going away.

AI will be used across many industries to improve customer experience, reduce costs, or enhance products, but it’s not fundamentally going to change things. Valuations are going to be disproportionate towards those companies.  But the real question is: Will companies use AI to actually boost profits, or will those gains be passed on to consumers, like with many past innovations? For investors and executives, the key is understanding whether AI is a true source of competitive advantage. That distinction will vary by industry, but it’s central to how we think about value in the future.

The ruling by US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit temporarily restores Trump’s ability to move forward with tariffs using the emergency powers he declared last month. The court set a deadline of June 5 for the plaintiffs and June 9 for the government to reply.

The latest development muddies the regulatory back-and-forth over whether tariffs would be ultimately implemented and, if so, how steep they could be.

Recall how Trump began threatening tariffs back in February. Despite the rhetoric, substantive orders didn’t emerge for several weeks after that. “He kept doing this kind of seesaw effect of putting them on again, off again, on again, off again,” economist Phillip Magness, a senior fellow at the Independent Institute and David J. Theroux Chair in Political Economy, says. “And it wasn’t really until we got to the so-called ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs on April 2 that we had anything even resembling a permanent policy.”

Clarity seemingly came in the form of a rebuke from a bipartisan panel of three judges on late Wednesday. The judges explained that many of Trump’s tariffs—imposed under the obscure and rarely used International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—“exceed any authority granted” to the president by law. It was a sharp blow to Trump’s trade agenda, considering tariffs are one of his most aggressive policy maneuvers during his first 100 days in office.

The CIT’s ruling undercut a central pillar of the president’s global trade strategy by forcing the Trump administration to begin unwinding tariffs within just 10 days.

“It may be a very dandy plan, but it has to meet the statute,” Senior Judge Jane Restani, who was nominated to the court by former President Ronald Reagan, said during proceedings on the issue, which took place last week.

While not all the tariffs were struck down, the decision exposes the legal overreach behind Trump’s self-proclaimed dealmaking prowess and undermines his claims of unbounded executive control over international trade.

Magness, meanwhile, describes it as “a wild month”—in more ways than one.

This week’s CIT ruling “throws a wrench into all these supposed ongoing negotiations that Trump claims he’s been doing over the last several weeks,” Magness adds. Also, it highlights a “deeper legal problem” with the approach Trump has taken to negotiating.

Long-standing procedures go back to the 1930s, and US statutes detail how to negotiate trade agreements with foreign countries.

In 2002, for instance, President George W. Bush secured Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), also known as Fast Track, which allowed the executive branch to negotiate trade agreements that Congress could approve or reject but not amend. This authority helped streamline the approval process.

“Trump has essentially thrown those all out the window and says he’s just going to do it himself,” Magness says. “If you go through the normal process, it requires that certain agreements have to be approved by a congressional vote.”

In a research note from Goldman Sachs, published late Wednesday, analysts noted that they “expect the Trump administration will find other ways to impose tariffs.”

For example, the firm cites Section 122 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which grants the president authority to take action to address unfair trade practices that affect US commerce.

Whether the Trump administration can skirt the court’s ruling to justify tariffs remains to be seen. Until then, Goldman Sachs says “this ruling represents a setback for the administration’s tariff plans and increases uncertainty but might not change the final outcome for most major US trading partners.”

The tariffs that were struck down by the ruling include: “Reciprocal” levies on 60-plus countries (which were paused for 90 days); the 10% baseline tariff; the 25% tariff on Canadian goods; the 30% tariff on all China-made goods; and the 25% tariff on most goods made in Mexico.

Levies issued by the Trump administration under other legal authorities, such as tariffs on steel, aluminum, cars, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors, for example, remain in place.

UBS’s Kurt Reiman said in an analyst note published Thursday that he expects the administration to “prepare the groundwork for a more surgical increase in tariffs beginning this summer” once trade investigations into whether certain imports threaten national security are completed.

President Donald Trump essentially backed down on a trade war that he started with China, reducing US duties on Chinese imports from a punishing 145% to 30%. China, meanwhile, slashed its tariffs on American goods from 125% to 10%.

The short-term relief is already creating ripple effects as container carriers like Marseille, France-based CMA CGM and Hamburg, Germany-based Hapag-Lloyd reportedly praised the pause and expect to see a spike in bookings as businesses try to ship before the temporary pause ends.

“You weren’t going to be shipping anything from China to the US at 145%,” David Roche, president of financial analysis firm Quantum Strategy in Singapore, told Global Finance. “At 30%, something gets shipped—but far less than when we were at 8% before Trump took office.” Roche noted that a modest uptick in container traffic might soon appear in Port of Los Angeles bookings, which reflect demand about three weeks out.

But he cautioned: “My feeling is that we will see a small recovery, but not a big recovery, and you will still have empty shelves, and you will still have increased inflation in the US as a result of these tariffs.”

April inflation data offered a mixed picture. While year-over-year inflation cooled slightly to 2.3%—just under the 2.4% forecast—prices still rose 0.2% month-over-month, missing estimates of 0.3%. Core inflation, excluding volatile food and energy prices, held steady at 2.8%.

The scenario looks less bleak compared to last month when Fitch Ratings downgraded its 2025 global GDP forecast to 1.9% amid concerns about Trump’s escalating tariff policy. The firm’s chief economist, Brian Coulton, said in an analyst note on Tuesday that while the latest 90-day pause brings the US effective tariff rate down from 23% to 13%, it’s still far above the 2.3% level seen in 2024.

This does not mean that the trade war, “which is already having a tangible economic impact, is over,” Coulton said, citing remaining 10% baseline tariffs and industry-specific levies still in force.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent insists the US-China talks are part of a broader strategy of “economic decoupling for strategic necessities.” He emphasized that “generalized decoupling” is not US policy, but the administration remains focused on import substitution to reduce reliance on Chinese goods and bolster American manufacturing.

Even with the recent rollback, China remains the US’s most heavily tariffed trading partner. According to Fitch, the current ETR for Chinese imports stands at 31.8%, factoring in legacy duties on steel, autos, and a 10% baseline tariff applied broadly. Certain electronics like smartphones and computers were excluded from the most recent round of tariffs.

While the temporary deal may cool tensions and boost transpacific shipping in the short run, experts warn that the structural damage to global supply chains—and the strategic rift between the world’s two largest economies—is unlikely to heal in just 90 days.

Analysts for Singapore-based UOB Group struck a more optimistic tone following the pause in US-China trade tensions, forecasting a near-term economic boost for China as exporters rush to front-load production and shipments to the US during the window.

“Suffice to say, we now see some upside potential to our 2025 growth forecast for China of 4.3%,” UOB analysts said in a note, though they said that any formal revision will wait for further data. Despite the temporary reprieve, UOB expects China to continue focusing on domestic resilience and export diversification, supported by ongoing policy efforts.

For months, institutional investors have blamed Tesla’s troubles on CEO Elon Musk, who has been devoting much of his time to politics. On an April 22 investor call, Musk tacitly acknowledged the problem, promising that his “time allocation at DOGE will drop significantly,” referring to his Department of Government Efficiency.

Since President Trump’s inauguration, Musk’s campaign to root out government waste has devolved into a partisan spectacle, drawing mass protests and even leading to vandalism at Tesla dealerships. Many buyers have shunned the brand in reaction to Musk’s increasingly polarizing profile.

On the bright side, Tesla’s energy storage business surged 67% in the first quarter, software-subscription revenue is rising, and a June launch is planned for a robotaxi fleet along with a cheaper Model Y offering.

But the financial fallout is stark. The Austin, Texas-based company’s operating margin slid to 2.1%, down from 5.5% a year ago. Tesla also missed earnings expectations, reporting just 27 cents per share versus the 41 cents analysts had anticipated.

Eighty-five percent of investors surveyed by Morgan Stanley in March said Musk’s political activities damaged Tesla’s reputation and that they hope for a turnaround.

“In essence, this was an off ramp for Musk out of the Trump White House in our view,” Wedbush analyst Dan Ives said in a note to investors, “as the global brand damage, political firestorm, and perfect-storm chaos over the past few months will now end this volatile political chapter for Musk, and we expect minimal if any time focused on DOGE going forward.”

Trump, meanwhile, said he wants “to keep Elon for a long time.” Others in Washington may not share the same sentiment, however. Musk’s time at DOGE was reportedly rife with heated confrontations with cabinet members including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, and Trade Adviser Peter Navarro. 

Companies and their executives, both in the US and elsewhere, are now left to navigate a murky new landscape: one where political motivation may be just as influential as legal precedent. Take, for example, the case of Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. In April, a federal judge—at the behest of Alina Habba, US attorney for New Jersey and a former Trump defense lawyer—officially dropped the Department of Justice’s long- running bribery case against the company’s two former bosses, Gordon Coburn and Steven Schwartz, who allegedly authorized a $2 million bribe to expand in India. It was the first time the DOJ had walked away from a foreign bribery prosecution since Trump took office for his second term.

“They’re cherry-picking. You’re either going to prosecute all these cases or none of them.”

Frank Rubino, Attorney

Just a few weeks after Coburn and Schwartz got a pass, prosecutors proceeded with a bribery case against Smartmatic, a London-based voting machine company that far-right conspiracy theorists falsely claimed helped steal the 2020 election from Trump in favor of former President Joe Biden. Ironically, it was the Biden administration that brought a case against two Smartmatic executives last year. Venezuelan-born co-founder Roger Piñate and his colleague, Jorge Miguel Vasquez, were both charged with making $1-million bribes in the Philippines. Trump’s DOJ is still moving forward with the lawsuit in Miami.

Confused attorneys were left wondering: Does the FCPA now only apply to some companies and not others?

“I don’t understand why the government is taking an incon- sistent position,” says Frank Rubino, a lawyer for one of the charged Smartmatic executives. The Cognizant scenario isn’t dissimilar to what’s being alleged against Smartmatic, he argues. The only difference is the one-eighty on the part of prosecutors. “They’re cherry-picking,” says Rubino. “You’re either going to prosecute all these cases or none of them.”

Rubino’s entire practice in Coral Gables, Florida, has been devoted to federal white-collar crime, including cases involving alleged FCPA violations, over the course of his 30-year career. And he somewhat agrees that FCPA enforcement can be too strict. The “tiniest thing”—e.g., taking a prospective buyer to dinner—can be construed as a violation, he says. But the Trump administration’s appearance of favoring one company over another encourages him to gear up for an October trial date.

“We’ll prepare as if Trump never signed that executive order and hopefully be successful,” Rubino says. “The fact that certain cases are dismissed has no bearing on our preparation.”

According to law firm Greenberg Traurig, the DOJ and the Securities and Exchange Commission obtained over $1.28 billion in total FCPA penalties in 2024, one of the highest grossing years since it became law in 1977.

Over the past decade, several high-profile corporations have been fined for bribery, including Airbus, which settled for over

$3.9 billion in 2020; Goldman Sachs, which settled for $2.9 billion in connection with the 1MDB scandal; and Glencore, a Switzerland-based mining firm, which pleaded guilty and paid over $1.1 billion to settle an investigation.

During his first term, Trump called the FCPA a “horrible law.” This year, he claimed that it “actively harms American economic competitiveness.” His executive order enacted a 180- day enforcement pause to allow Attorney General Pam Bondi time to review FCPA “guidelines and policies.”

This was particularly jarring for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Paris- based group that promotes economic growth, stability, and trade among a broad group of countries, including the US.

Per a letter sent to Bondi on Feb. 13 and obtained by Global Finance, the OECD made its case: A prolonged FCPA pause “will not serve its intended purpose to ‘restore American competitiveness and security.’ It may achieve the very contrary by putting American companies operating abroad at serious risk and depriving the United States of a deterrent instrument it has used to pro- tect US companies from unfair practices by foreign competitors.”

The letter also argued why Trump’s logic, while valid, is dated.

Nicola Bonucci, a former OECD director, maintains that the US was, for a time, at a disadvantage since other countries were turning a blind eye to bribery. “The paradox is that the uneven playing field was a true argument point between 1977 and 1999,” he says. “It’s much less so now.”

The 1999 OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, which Bonucci helped implement, changed the norm when 46 signatory states, including the US, agreed to unite and fight bribery on a global scale. US companies operating abroad “are in a difficult situation,” Bonucci adds, fearing an uptick in bribery solicitations and further confusion if some companies are treated differently than others. “The rationale for discontinuing some ongoing cases while pursuing others is not clear and creates further uncertainty,” Bonucci says.

As it stands, most defendants in FCPA enforcement actions over the past decade were based in other countries and regions. A new report from law firm Gibson Dunn based on data from 2015 to 2024 finds that throughout that period, 50% of corporate defendants and 62% of individual defendants were non-US based. Additionally, foreign companies were responsible for eight of the 10 largest monetary settlements, contributing $6.1 billion of the $8.3 billion total.

Should the 180-day pause become permanent, or if the US pulls out as a signatory of the Anti-Bribery Convention, OECD chair Drago Kos expects “some countries may think that the Wild West of unpunished corruption is back.”

The US could also see its image as “a tough enforcer of global anti-bribery norms … slip into oblivion” or be deemed a “rogue state,” he adds. “This is why I really hope that after 180 days the US will be back on track.”

Per the Associated Press, Smartmatic’s voting machines were only used in Los Angeles County, a Democratic stronghold in a non-competitive state that Trump, a Republican, did not contest after the 2020 election. Yet, it remains in the DOJ’s crosshairs. Observers of the case note that this tracks with the Trump administration’s penchant for going after

perceived enemies while friendly ties to his inner political circle appear to carry weight. In late March, Trump pardoned Nikola founder and donor Trevor Milton, convicted of investor fraud. He also showed leniency to the cryptocurrency industry, which provided millions in donations throughout his campaign and up to his inauguration. In late March, he pardoned three BitMEX founders convicted of money laundering while the SEC abandoned investigations involving Ripple, Coinbase, and Gemini.

This year, the SEC also ditched a lawsuit involving Justin Sun, a crypto entrepreneur who invested millions in the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial firm shortly after Election Day.

Whether companies will now be emboldened by the ethical standards the Trump administration appears to be setting whenever they make a cross-border trans- action remains to be seen. Either way, observers say the current goings-on are not a good look for the US.

“I think there’s some sentiments that are starting to shift,” says Kison Patel, CEO of DealRoom, an M&A lifecycle management software provider. “It’s not as glamorous to go into business or get acquired by an American company, just given all the current sentiments towards our administration right now.”

Indeed, as of mid-April, data tracker Dealogic shows US M&A activity is down 3% in 2025 compared to this time last year, whereas in other regions, volume is up: Japan (142%), Asia (99%), Middle East/Africa (80%), Canada (53%), and Europe (9%).

The US is swimming against the tide as the global stance against bribery has become strong and interconnected, Kos says, predict- ing that most countries are unlikely to follow Washington’s lead should it repeal the FCPA or end its involvement with OECD. “The anti-corruption world is now strongly connected,” he argues, “and the fact that one country is pulling out, though very painful, will not be an insurmountable obstacle for the rest of the world to continue to fight corruption. Simply put: the leading role of the US will be replaced by other countries that will con- tinue to show the way for developing economies.”

Mounting recession fears, renewed trade tensions, and shifting political winds are weighing heavily on corporate dealmakers and private equity firms—particularly in the US, where valuations remain flat.

“Deals got done in Q1 but it has been slow and will probably get slower as the year progresses. I have been asking for updated 2025 projections but there is uncertainty in the markets and how the tariffs will play out, and a hesitation to provide those 2025 projections,” says David Acharya, managing partner at Acharya Capital Partners. “I have been hearing similar comments from my peers—senior investment partners with investment committee responsibilities.”

Consider the numbers. As of May 1, Dealogic shows US M&A value is at $575.6 billion. That’s down 1% compared to this time last year. Other regions are on the opposite trajectory: Japan, $42 billion (up 133%); Asia, $251.4 billion (73%); Canada, $52.4 billion (54%); Middle East/Africa, $31.4 billion (51%); and Europe, $257.8 billion (7%).

For the numbers to be where they are, investment banks don’t have many mega deals to boast about. In March, Google’s parent company, Alphabet, purchased cybersecurity startup Wiz for about $32 billion. There was also the $16.4 billion agreement between Constellation and Calpine Corp., as well as the $22.8-billion investment from China’s Ministry of Finance into four state-owned banks. In Europe, Austria’s OMV cut a deal with Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. to merge their respective polyolefins businesses; the combined entity proceeded to buy NOVA Chemicals Corp for $13.4 billion.

Technology, finance, health care, utilities, and oil and gas remain the most vibrant sectors across the globe. Technology and finance both exceeded last year’s three-month period in terms of dollars spent.

“In the US, M&A volume has decreased on a year-on-year basis, while most other markets in Asia and Europe have gone up,” Takashi Toyokawa of Ignosi Partners, says. “I’d expect this trend to continue over the next couple of quarters until there’s some level of certainty in the US.”

For the first quarter, the US Commerce Department announced that the economy shrank for the first time in three years. The 0.3% contraction was fueled by businesses scrambling to strategize in response to President Donald Trump’s confusing trade policy.

“While we’re seeing that deals that have been in the works since last year are still getting across the finish line, the uncertainty driven by the imposition of tariffs in the US and increase in long-term interest rates, which in turn has led to market volatility, has definitely caused potential acquirers to think twice before doing deals,” Toyokawa adds.

The current scenario is in stark contrast to what big banks were expecting at the end of 2024 and the start of 2025.

“The pace of mergers and acquisitions around the world gained momentum [in 2024], and there are signs that deal-making will accelerate in 2025,” Stephan Feldgoise and Mark Sorrell, Goldman Sachs’ M&A co-heads, said in a joint statement back in December.

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon was also bullish. Just days before Trump’s inauguration, the bank boss remarked: “Businesses are more optimistic about the economy, and they are encouraged by expectations for a more pro-growth agenda and improved collaboration between government and business.”

Not anymore. According to The Wall Street Journal, Dimon recently told investors at IMF meetings that a recession is the best-case outcome.

Hopes that a second Trump term would bring looser M&A regulations have also been dashed. The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission are proving just as tough as they were during Trump’s first term, as well as under former President Joe Biden. Recent lawsuits blocking Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s $14.3 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks and GTCR’s $611 million Surmodics buyout show that even under Trump, antitrust enforcers aren’t easing up.

The will-they-won’t-they dynamic between U.S. Steel and Tokyo-based Nippon Steel isn’t serving as a useful gauge for how the White House plans on handling M&A regulations, particularly when it’s a cross-border proposal. Under Biden, the deal was blocked due to what the former administration considered national security risks. Trump opposed it last year, but has been indecisive on the matter.

“The market was thinking there would be relief from the harsh anti-merger stance from the Biden administration, not open season on M&A,” Accelerate Fintech’s Julian Klymochko says. “Safe to say, that hasn’t happened.”

Whether M&A pros find that early-year optimism again remains to be seen. After all, hopes were high that pent-up demand, ample capital, and a business-friendly presidential administration would fuel a wave of consolidations.

Instead, dealmaking momentum has stalled, weighed down by rising market volatility and growing economic uncertainty, Andrew Lucano, co-chair of the M&A practice at law firm Seyfarth Shaw, explained.

“Recent US trade policies have introduced significant unpredictability, triggering market swings and prompting caution among deal participants, especially those with exposure to tariff risk,” Lucano says. “Uncertainty has always been one of the greatest inhibitors of dealmaking, and that’s exactly where we are right now. As a result, many players are adopting a ‘wait and see’ approach, at least in the near term, as they assess the full impact of tariffs and any potential retaliatory measures.”

Kirk Konert:  It was a little surreal and unbelievable, watching the Blue Ghost softly land on the moon. Firefly is the first commercial company to have accomplished this feat. So therefore, AE Industrial is the only private equity firm with a portfolio company that has achieved this milestone. There’s a lot of pride on our team. Obviously, we’re not the engineers, but we have helped the company get to where it is today, and we’re excited to play a small part in that.

GF: Are we officially in the era of space privatization?

Konert: I believe so. We are now past the point of asking, “Is this an investable sector for private equity and private investment firms?” We were in this sector earlier than others, but now we’re seeing large blue chip buyout firms taking substantial bets on the space industry, like Advent International with their $6.4 billion acquisition of Maxar, and KKR’s acquisition of OHB SE, a German space and technology company, last year. People are starting to believe that there’s a real opportunity to invest capital. Competition for assets has increased, and that’s a great sign. It’s good to be part of a healthy ecosystem where you have larger buyout firms participating alongside middle market firms like ours.

GF: LPs are growing concerned about their lack of returns. What’s their reaction to potential returns from the space sector?

Konert: Initially, LPs were a little skeptical. They sort of looked at it as an industry that’s in too early of a stage, and riskier than your traditional buyout. So far, we’ve been able to show that’s not necessarily the case. The companies we’re investing in are underpinned by real demand, real contracts and real growth. That’s different than saying, “Hey, we’re investing in a venture company that could make a satellite that could do XYZ.” We’re investing in companies that are not dissimilar to other end markets we focus on, such as defense, aerospace and industrial services. It just happens to be that this is a sector that maybe had a stigma of being a little riskier. But we kind of view space as just another domain, and we’re investing in a way that aligns with what our LPs expect.

GF: How does that pitch go whenever an LP is skeptical?

Konert: We’re always speaking to our existing investors about how we’re spending their capital and managing risk versus return. And for new investors, we present case studies of what we’ve done. American Pacific Corporation, for example, is a specialty materials manufacturer for national security and space programs that we originally bought from a family and improved. We sold it to New Market Corp. last year for $700 million. We also point to Redwire. At the time, we made a picks-and-shovels play for this “space gold rush.” We predicted it would happen and [the IPO] was great for investors. So, we show those success stories and say, “Look, you might see headlines of a rocket blowing up… We’re not investing in that. We’re investing in technology that works.” Also, there’s additional value that investors don’t price into the space market—things like Blue Ghost landing on the moon. We didn’t price that in when we invested in the company. But that’s obviously a huge value creative event and we will benefit from that option value that we didn’t underwrite in our model.

GF: I understand you earned the name Captain Kirk because of your space expertise. What’s the backstory?

Konert: [Laughs] The backstory is maybe not as inspiring as you might think. We were investing in the supply chain for commercial aerospace and defense businesses; there was a space component to those assets. And we started to notice that SpaceX was a line item in our company and thought, “Is this something we want to focus on?” We started digging and saw similarities to what happened in aviation where flying was very expensive, but that cost curve came down substantially. And then asset manufacturing went up substantially. So, we wondered how we can invest in that embedded growth and take a deep dive into that industry. It’s been a decade-long experience to become experts in the sector. But we believe in the mission; it gets us out of bed every day to say we’re investing in technologies that matter for the long term, whether it’s for human exploration to Mars, or protecting critical infrastructure for national security.

GF: What are the key barriers of entry for a company like Firefly in a world where Musk dominates media reaction and SpaceX is mainstream?

Konert: You got to give credit to SpaceX for changing the game. It’s the reason why we can invest in the space sector, but there’s always room for other great companies to participate in the market. And I think Firefly is one of them. They serve a specific niche that SpaceX does not serve. And I think that’s how we view it. We can be complimentary to what SpaceX is doing. Their Falcon 9 is not a perfect rocket for the missions that Firefly’s Alpha should be serving. It’s similar to what we’ve seen in legacy businesses. We’re not going to go head-to-head with Lockheed Martin and develop an F35 [fighter jet]. We’re going to find mission areas around that where we can carve out a niche and hopefully grow the entire pie for everyone in the space market. So, I think that’s how we look at SpaceX. We will beat them in some areas.

GF: You already did.

Konert: We did. Healthy competition is good for the incumbent, or the dominant player. Without that, you create complacency and overall stagnation of the market. Great competition creates a bigger, better, healthier market. I think SpaceX welcomes that. Hopefully Elon views it the same way. I think he does based on his view of the world. SpaceX is good at making satellites for Starlink and for their constellation. But our portfolio company, York Space, is better at some mission areas than SpaceX. York is good at making satellites for missions that are more bespoke and custom for national security. That’s a different part of the market where we can both play. We’ll beat them in some places, and they’ll beat us in some places.

GF: Earlier this month, Firefly secured a US Defense Department contract for an on-orbit mission in 2027, but SpaceX benefits from receiving generous US government contracts. What are the roles that regulators play in this sector and is there room for a company like Firefly to score contracts as well?

Konert: Investing in space has a lot of tailwinds as it relates to the US. The pacing threat is China, which is, in some ways, beating us in some areas within the space market. The headlines are one thing. But if you look at the broader community, they’re saying we need to have more investment in space—period. SpaceX will have a role to play. So will other companies like Firefly and York. We think the best solution, the best technology and the best cost will ultimately win the day. From our standpoint, we see a lot of opportunity and we’re also going to continue to find commercial and other markets to play in that can be additional growth areas. So, we see it as a positive that space is so in the forefront of the Trump administration’s mind. There will be more contracts for SpaceX, but I think there’ll be more contracts for the industry overall.

GF: Are there other sectors besides space, like drones or AI, where similar growth is evident?

Kirk: This year, one of our space-related portfolio companies, Redwire, acquired a drone company called Edge Autonomy. Now they have both a low-Earth orbit satellite just above the atmosphere, plus a drone company that’ll operate just below that—full domain expertise within one company. Before that deal, AeroVironment, a major drone maker, bought a space- and defense-tech company called BlueHalo for $4.1 billion.

We have investments in both those areas and see a convergence of it all to some degree. AI is going to be part of every company. Going forward, if you don’t have an AI strategy, you’re probably going to lose. AI will be used for space exploration, too. We used AI for Blue Ghost’s moon landing, for example. It’s also a key component of how you invest in your own portfolio companies. Our strategy is to invest in companies that take AI models and use their domain expertise to apply those models to help the customer. What we’re not investing in is large language models. We’ll let Elon Musk and Sam Altman do that work. We’ll focus on taking their models to apply it to the problems we’re trying to solve in our core sectors.

In March, Italian football clubs Internazionale Milano (Inter Milan) and Associazione Calcio Milan (AC Milan) made a bold play: buying the legendary Stadio Meazza and its surrounding area, a real estate deal that’s due to wrap up in July.

After sharing the iconic San Siro since 1947, the two rivals are teaming up to build a sleek, sustainable new stadium that could redefine Milan’s football scene (soccer, to you Americans). The proposal includes a major urban regeneration project aimed at attracting global fans while offering new perks for locals. San Siro, after hosting the two football titans for over 75 years, appears to be getting the makeover it deserves.

Such talk of modernizing Italy’s old yet venerable sports facilities is nothing new. But what’s getting the ball rolling this time is major backing from US-based private equity (PE) investors. Inter’s recent takeover by Oaktree Capital, with a €47 million (about $51 million) investment; and AC Milan’s €1.2 billion acquisition by RedBird Capital in 2022, are setting the stage for a future that looks as grand as the legendary clubs themselves.

PE players, it seems, are changing the game of football one purchase at a time—and enjoying the tax benefits that come with it.

According to a report from PwC—one of the biggest accounting firms that advises on these matters—“sports organizations are turning to institutional investors to provide capital to finance growth projects, such as stadium renovations, transitions to direct-to-consumer business models, and international expansion.”

Those investors, for their part, see Italy’s football stadiums as thriving businesses with long-term potential. They’re asking how technology can transform them into smart, revenue-boosting venues. By leveraging existing expertise and portfolio assets, investors see opportunities to optimize sponsorship deals and naming rights and create synergies that add value.

“These are things that a lot of clubs aren’t doing right now,” says Eric Andalman, an attorney at Hogan Lovells who specializes in sports, entertainment and project development. “All the investors that come in here are looking at those sorts of opportunities and different ways to revolutionize the club.”

In Italy, PE-backed football clubs now have sufficient cash to not only build new stadiums but deduct operational costs, player wages, and stadium upgrades as business expenses. Infrastructure investments like stadium renovations may qualify for incentives such as “super-depreciation” deductions, which allow businesses to claim larger, accelerated depreciation on assets, reduce taxable income, and provide immediate savings.

This encourages investment in capital improvements, PwC argues. There are also tax credits related to sports sponsorships, which may benefit firms involved in the development of football stadiums through advertising partnerships.

Oaktree and RedBird aren’t the only PE players eyeing new stadiums. In January, Texas-based Presidio Investors swooped in to acquire Hellas Verona FC at a reported €130 million valuation.

There’s potential for the football club to earn even more if it keeps its feet in Serie A and doesn’t get relegated to Serie B—a major blow for any team. Why? Because it would result in a significant revenue drop, especially from TV deals, sponsorships, and matchday income. Key players often leave for top-tier clubs, weakening the team’s chances of a comeback. Fan engagement and sponsorships also suffer, and the club faces difficulty securing promotion back to Serie A, jeopardizing growth and stability.

For Hellas, this scenario almost became a reality on several occasions. At last check, the club is languishing in 14th place among Italy’s top-flight teams. For frustrated fans, the hope is that Presidio can infuse more than just hope into the club’s future. There’s the potential to generate cashflow and deepen the bench with new talent.

“For private equity, the story is very different, because they typically adopt a more structured approach. They try to emphasize long-term growth,” says Paola Barometro, a partner in the corporate finance practice at Hogan Lovells.

Financial sponsors like Presidio, which Barometro and Andalman advised on the Hellas deal, put great emphasis on growing revenues through licensing, marketing, and monetizing the fan base.

“Now, at least in Italy, we have a very interesting mix of investors that I think also bring different management styles and are creating a dynamic environment,” she adds. Ten years ago, this was unheard of.

“Just to give you a sense of the trend in Italy; In 2011, all of the Serie A clubs were owned by Italian individuals or companies,” she notes. “So, the trend now is very, very different.”

In 2020, US billionaire Dan Friedkin took the reins of Associazione Sportiva Roma from previous owner James Pallotta. The Friedkin Group fueled the financial revival with a mix of smart commercial deals and a solid Serie A finish.

Hellas Verona’s new PE owners are hoping to mimic that magic. And, like Roma, Hellas does not currently have its own stadium.

Roma shares Stadio Olimpico with Società Sportiva Lazio. And while Roma has long had plans to build its own dedicated facility, the project has faced numerous delays and complications, including political issues, zoning problems, and financial hurdles.

Over just a few short months, Hellas Verona had better luck. Its current home, Stadio Marcantonio Bentegodi, was opened in 1963 and last renovated ahead of the 1990 World Cup. The fact that the city of Verona’s mayor, Damiano Tommasi, is a former Hellas Verona infielder helped get things moving. Now American investors once again appear ready to revitalize one of Italy’s historic venues.

The trend isn’t exclusive to Italy. The future of England’s Premier League recently got a whole lot more American, too.

“We’re up to 10 now,” says Marc Trottier, partner at law firm Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner in London, noting how half of the league’s teams are now under majority US ownership. “The growth and value of the clubs has been phenomenal over the last few years.”

Among the standouts are Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester United and Everton, which is “a phenomenal asset,” Trottier says. After Friedkin bought it in December, the club is planning a “beautiful new stadium” at Bramley-Moore Dock.

Rumors abound concerning other clubs in Serie A and even lower divisions. Clubs in Serie B, Italy’s second-tier league, are ripe for investment because of their potential for promotion into Serie A. An upgrade would lead to a significant boost in television rights, sponsorship deals, and matchday revenues.

While Serie C clubs may not offer the immediate financial rewards of Serie A or Serie B, they provide a low-cost entry point for investors looking to build long-term value.

“There are several teams that are potentially for sale if they get the right offer,” says Salvo Arena, a leading member of the M&A practice specializing in sports finance at Chiomenti, a Rome law firm. These lower-league teams “are a little bit cheaper, but you have a big upside.”

For now, the trend toward US ownership in Italian football “will remain hot,” Arena predicts. With Presidio Investors’ acquisition of Hellas Verona as the latest example, more firms are expected to follow suit.

“There’s very high interest and right now the Amercians are the ones who are buying,” Arena says. “There’s no reluctance on that. I receive so many calls from Serie A, B, and C teams. All the owners ask, ‘You know someone who wants to buy my team?’”

For the investment banking industry, 2024 was a time of tempered optimism and guarded anticipation. Market participants entered the year hoping for a robust revival in M&A, IPO, and debt financing activities.

Reality fell short of expectations.

Global M&A deal value rose 16% to $3.4 trillion last year, according to Dealogic. Although the uptick was a positive sign, it wasn’t the full-blown recovery bankers had hoped for. Several factors, including lingering macroeconomic uncertainties, geopolitical tensions, and volatile interest rates, kept the dealmaking environment challenging. The market was, in many ways, still grappling with the hangover from the previous years’ stagnation.

“Tariffs are going to affect decision making,” Kadlic predicted.

Why? Buyers and sellers like certainty, and the constant back-and-forth makes planning ahead feel like betting on a coin toss. Even if the tariffs do finally stick, investment bankers might spend so much of 2025 just trying to adjust that by the time the water feels warm, 2026 will already be knocking at the door.

That said, market dynamics don’t necessarily spell doom and gloom across all regions and sectors. Banks that adapt quickly to evolving conditions and adopt innovative dealmaking strategies are likely to be the biggest winners.

So far this year, almost every region has seen an uptick in M&A activity, according to Dealogic. As of March 20, Japan is up 123%; Asia, 39%; Middle East/Africa, 137%; Canada, 95%; Australia, 26%; and Europe, 18%.

The US, by contrast, has declined 11%, and Latin America has fallen 25%.

At first glance, today’s M&A trends seem worlds apart from the boom years of 2014 to 2022, driven by low interest rates.

“Some would call it free money,” says McKinsey Senior Partner Mieke Van Oostende. The era also benefited from a stable economic climate until the middle of 2022, when the Ukraine-Russia war triggered rising interest rates, inflation, supply chain shocks, and geopolitical uncertainty.

“Until mid-2022, deal volume and value were still pretty okay; but that was just pipeline deals,” Van Oostende notes. Eventually, interest rates spiked sharply and valuations remained high.

“[Valuations] have not collapsed,” she adds. After a dip in 2023, M&A activity showed signs of recovery in 2024.

Despite global uncertainties, the M&A outlook for 2025 appears optimistic, even bullish, Van Oostende argues. Favorable macroeconomic conditions—including resilient global economies, strong employment, lower capital costs, and normalizing valuations—are setting the stage for increased dealmaking.

There is pent-up demand as companies across banking, life sciences, oil and gas, tech, and advanced industries seek acquisitions to adapt and grow. Programmatic M&A, where firms make small to midsize acquisitions annually, remains the highest performing, least risky strategy, delivering 2.3% median excess total shareholder returns per year, according to Van Oostende.

A renewed interest in IPOs will also give investment banking a boost. Last year, many companies that had previously considered going public opted to delay their listings due to market volatility and valuation pressures. The IPO pipeline remained clogged as a result, with only a select few high-profile debuts making a significant impact. That should change in 2025, Van Oostende says.

The number of conversations McKinsey has with clients interested in an IPO “has gone up significantly,” she notes. “And it’s also clear that for private equity firms, as they continue or start to increase the rotation of their assets, IPOs are for sure now on the agenda.”

Over the previous 24 months, private equity firms sought bankers to handle divestitures—to a corporate or maybe another firm like their own. Today, the scenario is different, and the expectation is, “IPOs will indeed go up,” says Van Oostende.

At last check, IPO activity is up 30% across the globe this year, per Dealogic. The most active markets are Japan, which has seen a whopping 400% increase in deal volume as of March 20; Middle East/Africa (289%); and the US (72%).

Predicting whether the new wave of IPOs will be successful is tricky. JX Advanced Metals managed to raise 439 billion yen ($3 billion) on March 10, becoming Japan’s biggest IPO since SoftBank’s telecom unit in 2018. Also in early March, Venture Global a Virginia-based liquefied natural gas company, could look back at a share-price freefall of more than 60% since going public in January, erasing $39 billion in paper value and burning investors who bought stock in the company’s IPO.

“The real question is how the rest of the year and 2026 will play out,” says Colin Diamond, co-chair of the global securities and capital markets practice at Paul Hastings.

Given the last three years of suppressed IPO activity, there continues to be a strong pipeline of IPOs building, he adds. “Based on our own pipeline, these include a significant number of sponsor-backed transactions across all sectors and particularly the tech sector.”

Debt financing remained a critical tool for corporations in 2024, but the landscape was experiencing a strategic shift. Rising interest rates prompted many companies to lock in financing early in the year, leading to a front-loaded debt market. As the year progressed, the volume of new debt issuance tapered off, as only companies with strong balance sheets or strategic needs tapped the market.

In total, Dealogic reports, debt capital markets (DCM) spiked 36% in 2024 to exceed $9 trillion. But from January to March of this year, DCM is on a 16% downtrend, hovering at $2.1 trillion.

Investment bankers expect a more selective debt market in 2025. Companies will likely focus on refinancing existing debt and funding specific growth initiatives. Private credit markets have gained popularity in recent years and are expected to play an increasingly prominent role, offering flexible financing options where traditional banks may be more risk averse.

It’s always worth remembering, however, that not all markets are created equal and the investment banking industry is no stranger to turbulent waters. Those who can read the shifting tides and adapt their strategies to the evolving market conditions will be best positioned to thrive in 2025.

The cryptocurrency sector, for example, is ripe for IPOs,  “given the more favorable regulatory environment towards crypto under the Trump administration,” Diamond Says. “We expect the Securities and Exchange Commission to be focused on facilitating IPOs and capital formation, but macroeconomic conditions and consumer sentiment will ultimately drive whether the market opens more broadly in the second half of 2025 and 2026.”  

Research and analysis were executed by Thomas Monteiro, John Njiraini, Andrea Murad, and Lyndsey Zhang, who reviewed entries as well as other information. Global Finance editors reviewed their assessments and made the final selections. Corporate Finance Editor Anthony Noto served as lead editor. The individual contributions of Monteiro, Njiraini, Murad, and Zhang are indicated by their initials.

Global Finance editors and researchers, with input from a range of executives, investors, and consultants worldwide, used a series of criteria to select the winners of these awards, including market share; number, size, and complexity of deals; service and advice; structuring capabilities; distribution network; efforts to address market conditions; innovation; aftermarket performance of underwritings; and market reputation. We use information provided by the banks, as well as material gathered from other sources, to score and select winners based on a proprietary algorithm. Deals announced or completed in 2024 were considered. In the review process, Global Finance considers the full spectrum of banks, from relatively small institutions in frontier markets to global banks that lead the league tables.

Many winners submit, in support of their applications, information and perspectives that may not be publicly available. Banks that do not submit entries can still be selected as winners through Global Finance’s review process. However, experience shows that banks submitting entries with detailed explanations of differentiation in services for corporate clients as compared with peers achieve better results. Global Finance adheres to journalistic best practices for protecting the confidentiality of information.

Against the backdrop of a thriving year for global stock markets and increased activity in the debt spectrum, Bank of America (BofA) Securities managed to catapult its global operations to capture an impressive 43% year-over-year jump in investment banking fees as of the fourth quarter of 2024.

The numbers were buoyed mainly by the bank’s three main areas of operations: North America, Latin America, and Europe, where the bank controlled a commanding 8.3%, 9%, and 4.4% of the total investment banking fees, respectively. As a result, the bank’s revenue for the full year jumped to nearly $5.5 billion, according to Dealogic data, representing around 6.2% of the global investment banking market.

BofA also scored big on M&A despite the somewhat subdued activity, serving as the lead financial adviser for the buy side in the $1.9 billion acquisition of Hawaiian Airlines by Alaska Air, completed in September 2024. The bank also acted as the sole financial adviser for the buy side on Keurig Dr Pepper’s $990 billion acquisition of energy beverage company GHOST.            —Thomas Monteiro

Morgan Stanley solidified its status as the top global IPO bookrunner, leading the industry with over $7 billion in deal value across 65 IPOs, according to Dealogic. The firm guided several high-profile companies to successful public market debuts across diverse sectors.

Notable transactions included Scottsdale, Arizona-based aircraft maintenance services provider StandardAero’s $1.44 billion IPO in September, which priced above expectations; and Irvine, California-based Ingram Micro’s October IPO, which raised $409.2 million to support debt reduction. Morgan Stanley also played a critical role in Mexico City–based BBB Foods’ February IPO, helping raise $589 million. Morgan Stanley’s active involvement in Japan’s IPO landscape, which saw a 45% uptick compared to 2023, is also noteworthy. With Nomura, Morgan Stanley handled the IPO of Tokyo computer memory manufacturer Kioxia, which had an indicative market value of about 750 billion yen (about $5.1 billion). By consistently securing key mandates and driving strong market performances, Morgan Stanley reinforced its position as a dominant force in the investment banking and capital markets arena.          —Anthony Noto

Amid a year filled with ups and downs for emerging market economic activity, Itaú BBA leveraged its suite of offerings to help sustain the region’s long-term economic dynamism. As the broad nearshoring trend coincided with a pause in the ongoing cycles of interest rate cuts in the region, primarily due to rebounding inflation, securing the best deals took rare expe-rtise. Among the year’s top deals in emerging markets, Itaú BBA acted as the global coordinator for the $2.7 billion privatization of water and sanitation company Sabesp, the largest sanitation offering in Brazil’s history and the third-largest globally in 2024. The bank also managed Mallplaza’s $326 million capital increase, one of the region’s top follow-on offerings of the year. In M&A, Itaú BBA advised on the $300 million sale of 22 hotels in Brazil to BTG Pactual and on Cantu’s merger with GP Pneus, valued at about $139 million.      —TM

A fog of trepidation is spreading across most frontier economies. US President Donald Trump’s decisions to instigate tariff wars, tussle with the Federal Reserve over interest rates, and freeze foreign funding are bound to reverberate across most countries. While it’s hard to predict how damaging the impacts will be, companies in frontier markets must be creative in order to meet their financing needs.

KFH Capital remains dedicated to offering innovative capital solutions. Last year, the Kuwaiti company achieved a remarkable milestone, closing 22 transactions worth $24 billion. This was a significant increase from 12 transactions, valued at $7 billion, in 2023. A leading Islamic investment house, focused mainly on Arab countries, KFH Capital is a powerhouse in sukuk issuances. In 2024, it advised 16 clients, ranking high on the Bloomberg League Table. A differentiating edge for KFH Capital is innovation. Last year, it introduced the Wakala/Murabaha Sukuk structure, which is attracting interest from many sovereign wealth funds. —John Njiraini

With persistently high rates pressuring the ESG market, global sustainable-bond issuances remained nearly flat last year at about $1 trillion, according to Moody’s. The agency expects them to stay at about the same level in 2025. Despite this challenging backdrop, the Societe Generale (SocGen), the French giant and global leader in ESG, found growth in several markets outside the usual Europe-North America axis.

Among the bank’s main deals last year, in January it acted as a joint bookrunner for Chile’s record-breaking $1.7 billion social bond. Just one month later, in a similar offering, the bank served as joint bookrunner for Romania’s €2 billion (about $2.2 billion) green bond issue.

SocGen acted as a joint bookrunner on Mizuho Financial Group’s groundbreaking $1.3 billion green bond issuance in Japan. Again in the APAC region, the bank participated in the $1.5 billion green bond issued by Australia’s National Broadband Network. The bank was also a joint bookrunner on the French social welfare agency CADES’  landmark €4 billion social bond. —TM

Despite remaining wholly committed to sustaining vital infrastructure and business lines in Ukraine last year amid its ongoing war with Russia, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) did not lose sight of its commitment to supporting countries and businesses in their long-term sustainable-energy transition goals. With key participation on both fronts, the bank poured in a record-breaking $17.2 billion in 2024, a massive 26% year-on-year incerease.

As underlined by EBRD President Odile Renaud-Basso, it was not solely in the numbers but also the quality that improved, with directed investments transforming the business outlook in places like Moldova, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan—as well as in Ukraine. “Demand for our unique business model of financing, combined with policy advice, grows with every year that passes,” Renaud-Basso said in January. Among the countries benefiting most from EBRD’s targeted investments, Kazakhstan received close to $1 billion in funds. The bank also deployed over €2 billion (about $2.16 billion) in Ukraine, mostly via private partnerships.        —TM

With more than $3.2 billion invested last year to boost its already excellent technological offering, BBVA kept pushing the investment banking envelope in both financial offerings and client-facing structure, with a laser-sharp focus on artificial intelligence. Among the Spanish giant’s main initiatives in the field was the purchase of 3,000 ChatGPT Enterprise licenses now being utilized to enhance customer assistance and offerings, particularly in legal queries and in-app improvements.

The Madrid-based bank rolled out digital infrastructure improvements, facilitating the onboarding of new clients and the day-to-day operation of its existing customer base. For the former, BBVA’s new end-to-end digital onboarding for business customers has driven around 30% of new customer acquisitions since launch. For the latter, the bank significantly improved its digital cash management capabilities, reducing customer costs by migrating over-the-counter branch transactions to electronic transactions that function seamlessly 24/7. —TM

In a year when Latin American markets proved more volatile than usual, BTG Pactual’s consistent efforts in expanding its first-class suite of offerings proved key to clients looking for opportunities to diversify. Given the growing performance disparity between Latin American and US markets, the São Paulo–based bank opened new offices in New York and Luxembourg, increasing the geographical reach of its offerings. Among Banco BTG Pactual’s new products was a US Treasury and corporate bond portfolio, directly traded in US dollars. The offering helps complement a broader strategy that provides customers with direct access to US equities in dollar terms. The bank also increased its cryptocurrency offering by listing its dollar-pegged BTG Dol stablecoin on the Crypto.com exchange. The move allows clients to trade BTG Dol directly with leading global cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin and ethereum.  —TM