They did not need banking licences. Instead, they built on top of banks, quietly plugging into the system while presenting a very different face to customers. But now that model is changing.

After years of back-and-forth with regulators, Revolut finally getting its UK banking licence feels like more than just a company milestone. It’s a sign of where the industry is heading. Fintechs are no longer happy sitting in the middle. They want to run the whole show, as banks themselves.

But this is not a simple story of disruption. Nor is it a clean, linear shift. It is, as some experts suggest, something more uneven, more conditional and, perhaps, more fragile than it first appears.

Inside the numbers

To really get a sense of how big this shift is, you just have to look at what companies like Revolut are doing today.

It is no longer just a payments app. Over time, it has quietly expanded into savings, currency exchange, stock and crypto trading, and now even lending. It operates across Europe, the UK, the US, and parts of Asia-Pacific, less like a regional player and more like a global financial platform in the making.

The scale is hard to ignore. Revolut says it has around 70 million customers worldwide, with about 13 million in the UK alone. That’s massive for a company that, not too long ago, wasn’t even a bank.

Traditional banks have noticed. Over the years, many have either partnered with fintechs or invested in them, not just to compete, but to stay relevant as the industry evolves.

At the same time, more fintechs are going all in. Players like Monzo and Starling Bank in the UK, N26 in Europe, SoFi in the US, and Nubank in Latin America have already secured banking licences. This isn’t happening in one market; it is happening everywhere.

Even traditional banks are not just sitting back. Big names like JPMorgan Chase and DBS Bank are putting serious effort into digital and AI. They are starting to feel a lot more like fintechs than old-school banks.

When you step back and look at it, the gap really isn’t what it used to be. Fintechs and banks are slowly meeting somewhere in the middle.

Not a shift, but a wave

For Ron Shevlin, Chief Research Officer at Cornerstone Advisors, one of the United States’ leading independent investment consulting firms, the narrative of a sweeping transformation may be overstated.

“It’s more a wave than a shift,” he told International Finance, pointing to the influence of regulatory cycles. In his view, the current momentum is tied in part to a more accommodating political and regulatory environment, one that could easily change.

“The ‘wave’ will subside with the next change in the White House,” he said.

This framing matters. It suggests that the move toward banking licences is not inevitable, but contingent, shaped by external conditions as much as by internal strategy. Still, even a wave has direction. The direction, at least for now, is clear.

Limits of the partner-bank model

In order to understand why fintechs are moving toward licences, it helps to look at how they started.

In the early days, most fintechs did not bother becoming banks. They simply teamed up with licenced institutions, more or less ‘borrowing’ their infrastructure to get going. It helped them move fast, skip the heavy regulatory burden, and focus on building a smooth user experience.

“The partner bank model was always a workaround. A way to access banking infrastructure without the regulatory overhead. It was fine for early-stage fintechs that needed to move fast,” Shevlin explains.

But as these companies scaled, the limitations became harder to ignore.

Relying on sponsor banks, often smaller institutions, introduced friction. Product development could be constrained. Strategic flexibility could be limited. Most importantly, control was never fully in the fintech’s hands.

“If a sponsor bank changes its risk appetite, or gets acquired, or gets regulatory heat, the fintech suffers,” Shevlin notes.

In other words, the very structure that enabled rapid growth can become a bottleneck at scale.

The economics of becoming a bank

Beyond control, there is a more fundamental driver, which is ‘money’.

“Why now?” Shevlin explains: “Two reasons: the regulatory environment and profitability.”

At the heart of this is lending.

“The profits in banking come from lending. Without a licence, you cannot lend,” Shevlin noted.

This is a critical point. Many fintechs built their businesses around payments, earning revenue from interchange fees or subscriptions. But these revenue streams have limits. Margins are thin. Competition is intense.

A banking licence changes the equation. It basically changes the game for fintechs.

They can raise cheaper funds by holding deposits, move into lending products like loans and credit cards, keep more of the revenue instead of sharing it, and plug directly into payment systems. This isn’t a small upgrade; it fundamentally reshapes how their business works.

From fintech to bank

If the economics explain the ‘why’, the evolution of the industry explains the ‘how’.

According to Chris Skinner, CEO of The Finanser, the shift toward licences is particularly evident among neobanks.

“You cannot put all fintechs in the same bracket. But those who are neobanks, light banking services, have all started moving into getting banking licences in the past few years,” he told International Finance.

This distinction is important. Not all fintechs want to be banks. Payment specialists, infrastructure providers, and enterprise platforms may continue to operate through partnerships.

But for neobanks, companies that already resemble banks in everything but regulation, the move toward licences feels like a natural progression. As they make that transition, the line between fintech and traditional banking begins to blur.

“Totally,” Skinner says when asked whether the distinction is disappearing.

“There are many fintechs that are no longer fintechs. They are banks,” he added.

He cites Monzo and Starling Bank.

A changing competitive landscape

This blurring of boundaries has significant implications for competition. For years, traditional banks dismissed fintechs as niche players, useful for innovation, perhaps, but not a serious threat to core business lines. That view is becoming harder to sustain.

“It has been a slow burn,” Skinner observes, citing data suggesting that a growing share of traditional banking services is shifting toward fintech providers.

The trend is expected to accelerate in the coming years. The scale is already substantial.

For example, Revolut has millions of customers in the UK alone, and tens of millions globally. If even a fraction of those users transition to full banking relationships, the impact could be significant.

For traditional institutions like HSBC or Barclays, this is not just a competitive challenge; it is a structural one.

Technology as a differentiator

One reason fintech banks may be well-positioned to compete is technology. Traditional banks, in many cases, still operate on legacy systems built decades ago, long before the internet, let alone mobile or cloud computing. Fintechs, by contrast, started from scratch.

“The critical thing about neobanks is that they began with no legacy infrastructure. The new banks built theirs specifically to leverage today’s technologies,” Skinner explains.

This gives them an edge in areas such as user experience, product development speed, data analytics, and integration with emerging technologies like AI.
As the industry enters what Skinner describes as ‘another big change with AI’, this technological foundation could become even more important.

“The new banks have far more ability to use intelligence,” he said.

Regulation: Supportive or cautious?

If tech and money are pushing fintechs toward licences, regulation is the one thing that can still slow things down, or change the direction.

On one hand, there are signs of support. Regulators in markets like the UK have actively encouraged innovation, creating frameworks that allow fintechs to experiment and grow.

“Regulators are now pretty comfortable with fintechs. In fact, they want to encourage more innovation in finance,” Skinner said.

On the other hand, the relationship is not without tension. Things like KYC checks have actually become a sticking point, especially for fintechs trying to move from simple payments or prepaid models into full-fledged banking. Customers who signed up with minimal documentation may suddenly be required to provide detailed identification, leading, in some cases, to account closures and dissatisfaction.

At a broader level, regulatory attitudes can shift with political cycles.

“It’s a back-and-forth thing,” Shevlin notes, particularly in the US context. This creates uncertainty. What looks like a supportive environment today may not remain so tomorrow.

Do Customers Even Care?

Amid all this discussion of licences, regulation, and strategy, there is a simpler question: does it matter to customers?

Shevlin offers a blunt perspective: “Americans do not really care if a fintech has a charter or not, until that fintech fails.”

It is a reminder that, for most users, the appeal of fintech lies in experience, ease of use, transparency, and convenience. Regulatory status is largely invisible, at least until something goes wrong.

This creates an interesting dynamic. Fintechs may pursue licences for economic and strategic reasons, but the customer-facing narrative may not change much. At least, not immediately.

Not all fintechs will follow

Despite the momentum, not every fintech will or should become a bank.

“There are different paths,” Skinner says.

For example, companies like Stripe, Adyen, and Airwallex focus on payments and financial infrastructure, often in partnership with banks. For these firms, a banking licence may offer limited additional value relative to the complexity it introduces.

Even among neobanks, timing matters.

“Fintechs need to scale to a certain point before the economics make sense,” Shevlin argues, suggesting that pursuing a licence too early can be risky.

Historically, obtaining a licence has been a lengthy and expensive process, one that requires significant resources and regulatory engagement. The current environment, with faster approval cycles, may not last.

Toward a new banking landscape

Both Shevlin and Skinner see a landscape in flux, but not necessarily one that follows a single trajectory. For Skinner, the long-term vision is expansive.

“The landscape of 2035 is one where many fintechs have worked together to build a new world of global banking. It’s a brave new world,” he said.

In this vision, the dominance of traditional banks could give way to a more diverse ecosystem, one that includes global digital banks, regional challengers, and specialised fintech platforms.

For Shevlin, it is a bit more measured. This wave of fintechs chasing licences may continue for now, but it won’t be steady or last forever.

What really comes through is that this isn’t a simple disruption story. Fintechs aren’t just trying to replace banks anymore. In many cases, they are becoming them. But it is not a straight path. It is shaped by regulation, economics, timing, and all of it. Getting a licence opens doors, but it also brings new pressures.

More than anything, it shows a mindset shift. Fintechs are no longer operating outside the system; they are stepping right into it. Whether that truly reshapes banking is still an open question.

For now, what is clear is that the boundaries are changing. And in finance, as in many industries, when boundaries shift, everything else tends to follow.

The post When fintechs stop playing nice, and start becoming banks appeared first on International Finance.

The company also noted that despite the ongoing Middle East conflict, ADNOC L&S’ global operations have remained normal, as the business remains financially strong and fully operational across all divisions.

“ADNOC L&S continues to closely monitor the current operating environment and is working in coordination with relevant authorities and stakeholders to ensure the safety of its people and the continuity of its operations,” the company remarked in a media note.

Breaking down the key financial details, dividends for the first nine months of 2025 totalled USD 243.75 million (AED 859.3 million), with the third-quarter dividend already paid in December 2025. Subject to required approvals, the dividend will increase by 5% annually from 2026 to 2030, before being paid out quarterly.

“ADNOC L&S delivered record 2025 results, with EBITDA up 32% and net profit up 14% year-on-year, reflecting the ongoing transformation of the business into a global market leader, underpinned by a diversified, resilient business model and disciplined capital deployment. As of December 31, 2025, the Company’s share price has increased by 195% since the IPO, strengthening investor trust in ADNOC L&S’ long-term strategy. Performance was driven by favourable market demand, strong operational execution, and continued expansion across core and growth segments. The integration of Navig8, an international shipping pool operator and commercial management company, was a milestone that strengthened and transformed the company’s capabilities across its logistics value chain,” the venture commented.

Dr. Sultan Al Jaber, Chairman of ADNOC L&S, said, “For shareholders, performance translated into tangible returns. Financial discipline remains central to our strategy, and this strength enables us to pursue value‑accretive growth while maintaining attractive and predictable shareholder returns. ADNOC Logistics & Services has built a global platform underpinned by a resilient business model anchored by long‑term contracts. Looking ahead, our diversified logistics capabilities and disciplined capital framework position the Company to deliver through cycles while supporting ADNOC’s expanding global ambitions.”

“ADNOC L&S continued to deliver its growth strategy built around service excellence and a safe and smart operational execution. Driven by organic growth and our acquisition of an 80% stake in Navig8, our robust balance sheet, prudent leverage policy and strong operating cash flows anchor our resilience. Our Value Efficiency Initiative, introduced in early 2025, delivered $119 million (AED 437 million) over the year, surpassing its original target by 19%. Our ongoing technology and AI-driven innovation, beyond increasing process efficiency across the business, is also delivering tangible service enhancements, creating additional value for ADNOC L&S and our customers,” said Captain Abdulkareem Al Masabi, CEO of ADNOC L&S.

Talking about the January 2025 acquisition of Navig8, an international shipping pool operator and commercial management company, which cost ADNOC L&S USD 999 million (AED 3.7 billion), the move resulted in the immediate integration of Navig8’s 32-vessel fleet, along with the adoption of the company’s advanced commercial and digital capabilities within ADNOC’s fold, significantly expanding its global footprint to 19 cities. The acquisition added commercial scale, strengthened ADNOC L&S’ revenue profile, and improved access to global energy and commodities flows.

“Navig8 provides the Company with a broader international platform for its next phase of growth. In 2025, ADNOC L&S also strengthened its fleet with the first two of a total order of nine Very Large Ethane Carriers (VLECs) and an additional four LNG carriers to generate long-term contracted revenue. On March 23, 2025, the company took delivery of the fifth of six new-build liquefied natural gas carriers from the Jiangnan Shipyard in China,” the venture remarked.

ADNOC L&S also secured long-term strategic partnerships, including a 50-year agreement with TA’ZIZ to develop the UAE’s first dedicated chemicals export port, projected to generate revenue flow of over USD 1.3 billion (AED 4.8 billion) in its first 27 years. A 15-year strategic agreement with Borouge further strengthens ADNOC L&S’ contracted revenue base in the domain of petrochemicals exports, with an estimated value of USD 531 million (AED 1.95 billion).

“With the continuous digitalisation of an increasing number of core business processes, ADNOC L&S has been leveraging AI, big data, and advanced digital platforms to drive service excellence, operational performance, and safety. Its AI-enabled Smart Port Solution reduced vessel turnaround time by up to 90% and cut service sourcing from three hours to 45 seconds, while enhancements to the Integrated Logistics Management System and Integrated Logistics Services Platform increased cargo capacity by up to 40% and improved vessel utilisation,” the business concluded.

The post ADNOC L&S shareholders approve dividend payout appeared first on International Finance.

While the Republican called the verdict a “disgrace” and decided to carry on the levies, named as “global tariffs,” through alternative means, the mechanism, since 2025, has created flutters around the world. Not only did the overall global trade flow get adversely affected, Uncle Sam’s relations with allies like Canada, the European Union, South Korea and India also faced significant headwinds.

Post the SC verdict, where are things heading now? To discuss this, International Finance caught up with Linda Middleton-Jones, an advocate and ambassador for international trade. As a founder and Managing Director of International Trade Matters with over 30 years of experience in international commerce, Linda serves as an Internationalisation Specialist for “Innovate UK,” supporting innovative tech startups in global market expansion.

Previously, as the International Trade Director for Plymouth Chamber of Commerce, she created the Manufacturing Barometer (mentioned at Davos and recorded in Hansard) and the Global Trade Blueprint based on Sensemaking principles. Named “Most Influential Businesswoman in Multi-Sector International Commerce 2022,” Linda completed certified training with MIT, The Economist and the ILM.

In this exclusive conversation, Linda discusses how the “Trump Tariffs” achieved limited success in fulfilling primary goals such as manufacturing reshoring, deficit reduction and revenue generation, while generating substantial costs for American businesses and consumers alike. She also notes that businesses dependent on imported components faced higher input costs, reducing competitiveness globally.

International Finance: What is your view on the clash between the US Supreme Court and the Donald Trump administration after tariffs continued despite the ruling?

Linda Middleton-Jones: The clash exemplifies political fragmentation overriding institutional governance—a tension familiar to companies navigating competing jurisdictions. When executive authority supersedes judicial oversight, it creates unpredictability for internationally trading businesses. From my work with UK exporters through International Trade Matters, this instability complicates strategic planning and risk assessment. Companies require regulatory certainty; when political expediency trumps constitutional frameworks, it undermines the governance pillar of ESG that businesses increasingly depend upon. This isn’t merely domestic politics—it reverberates through global supply chains, forcing trading partners to question America’s commitment to rules-based commerce. The real victims are SMEs lacking resources to pivot quickly when political whims override established frameworks.

Are tariffs the only way to address serious balance of payments deficits?

Tariffs represent the bluntest instrument in economic policy—effective perhaps for headline politics but crude for addressing structural imbalances. My experience with Innovate UK (United Kingdom’s national innovation agency) demonstrates alternative approaches: investing in innovation, enhancing productivity, supporting export capability, and improving competitiveness through skills development. Japan and Germany achieved trade surpluses through manufacturing excellence, not protectionism. Balance of payments deficits reflect deeper issues, currency valuations, consumption patterns, productivity gaps, and comparative advantages. Addressing these requires systemic change: infrastructure investment, education reform, and industrial strategy. Tariffs may temporarily reduce imports but simultaneously increase costs for domestic manufacturers dependent on global supply chains, potentially worsening competitiveness. Sustainable solutions lie in enhancing export capability, not simply restricting imports.

Have tariffs helped boost US manufacturing, trade balance, or federal revenue so far?

Evidence suggests limited success across all three metrics. Manufacturing reshoring proves slow and expensive—relocating complex supply chains requires years and substantial capital investment. The trade deficit with China decreased marginally but diverted rather than eliminated—imports shifted to Vietnam, Mexico, and other nations. Federal revenue from tariffs increased nominally but pales against broader economic costs: higher consumer prices, retaliatory tariffs damaging agricultural exports, and supply chain disruptions. Companies I work with report increased costs without corresponding domestic alternatives. The Peterson Institute estimates tariffs cost American households considerably more than the revenue generated. Manufacturing competitiveness requires workforce skills, infrastructure, and innovation investment—tariffs alone cannot substitute for a comprehensive industrial strategy. Short-term political gains versus long-term economic reality.

Do Trump’s tariffs contradict the principles of free trade?

Unequivocally, yes. Free trade principles rest on comparative advantage, specialisation, and mutual benefit through reduced barriers. Tariffs fundamentally contradict these tenets, representing protectionism regardless of justification. However, the nuanced reality acknowledges that ‘free trade’ rarely exists purely—every nation maintains strategic protections around agriculture, defence, and sensitive technologies. The question becomes whether tariffs address genuine unfair practices or simply protect uncompetitive industries. China’s state subsidies, intellectual property theft, and market access restrictions warrant a response, but blanket tariffs penalise allies and trading partners indiscriminately. WTO mechanisms exist precisely to adjudicate trade disputes through rules-based frameworks. Abandoning multilateral systems for unilateral action undermines decades of trade architecture, inviting retaliatory fragmentation that ultimately harms all participants.

Could the ruling affect the China+One supply chain strategy in the near term?

The ruling creates short-term uncertainty but is unlikely to derail China+One fundamentally. Companies pursuing supply chain diversification respond to multiple drivers beyond tariffs: geopolitical risk, pandemic lessons, intellectual property concerns, and ESG considerations regarding labour practices and critical minerals sourcing. My clients implementing China+One strategies—relocating to Vietnam, India, Mexico—cite resilience over cost optimisation. Even tariff removal wouldn’t reverse investments already committed. However, reduced tariff certainty may slow new diversification investments as companies await clarity. The strategic imperative remains: overconcentration in China presents unacceptable risk regardless of tariff policy. Geographic diversification reflects long-term risk management, not merely tariff avoidance. Political instability accelerates this trend rather than reverses it.

How have tariffs strained US ties with allies like Japan, South Korea, the UK, EU, and India?

Tariffs against allies fundamentally breach the trust underpinned by decades of partnership. Japan and South Korea, critical security partners facing China and North Korea, find themselves economically targeted alongside adversaries. The UK, seeking post-Brexit trade opportunities, encountered American protectionism rather than the promised partnership. EU relations deteriorated as tariffs on steel, aluminium, and other sectors contradicted stated alliance values. India’s retaliatory tariffs on American goods demonstrate damaged goodwill. Beyond economics, these actions signal unreliability—if America weaponises trade against allies during peacetime, what commitment remains during crises? My work shows British exporters questioning American market dependence, seeking alternative partnerships. Trust, once broken, requires years rebuilding. Allies increasingly pursue China relationships, CPTPP membership, and regional agreements excluding America, fundamentally realigning global trade architecture.

Will US allies now seek more concessions after the ruling?

Absolutely. The ruling demonstrates institutional limits on executive authority, emboldening allies to press for advantages. Japan, the EU, and others will demand tariff removals, market access improvements, and safeguards against future unilateral actions as preconditions for deeper cooperation. They recognise American political instability creates negotiating leverage—businesses and states demanding trade certainty pressure the federal government toward compromise. However, allies also pursue insurance policies: strengthening intra-regional trade, diversifying away from US dependence, and building alternative frameworks. The ruling proves America’s internal divisions, suggesting allies cannot rely upon a consistent policy. Consequently, concessions sought extend beyond immediate tariff relief toward structural guarantees and dispute resolution mechanisms limiting future executive overreach. Power dynamics have shifted—America’s allies recognise they hold cards previously underutilised.

Have these tariffs become counterproductive for the US economy?

Increasingly, evidence suggests yes. Initial objectives—manufacturing reshoring, deficit reduction, revenue generation—achieved limited success while generating substantial costs. American manufacturers dependent on imported components face higher input costs, reducing competitiveness globally. Agricultural exports collapsed under retaliatory tariffs, requiring federal bailouts exceeding tariff revenue. Consumer prices increased disproportionately, affecting lower-income households. Supply chain disruptions revealed during COVID-19 were exacerbated rather than resolved. Perhaps most damagingly, America’s reputation for rules-based trade governance suffered irreparable harm, encouraging allies toward alternative partnerships. My clients report that tariff unpredictability—more than tariffs themselves—proves most destructive, preventing long-term investment decisions. When political expediency overrides economic rationality, everyone loses. Protectionism may offer short-term political satisfaction but delivers long-term economic pain.

The post Protectionism delivers long-term pain: International Trade Matters Founder Linda Middleton-Jones appeared first on International Finance.

Finance teams rarely struggle because they lack discipline or effort. They struggle because revenue, lease obligations, approvals and reconciliations sit across disconnected systems, often stitched together by spreadsheets and manual handoffs. As transaction volumes grow and monetisation models become more complex, those seams begin to show.

In this environment, automation is not about speed alone. It is about reducing opacity, strengthening governance and enabling finance to scale without increasing risk.

Research from the American Productivity & Quality Centre (APQC) shows that top-performing organisations close in four to five days, while others may take 10 days or more. As standards such as ASC 842 and IFRS 16 increase reporting complexity, spreadsheet-driven processes introduce higher exposure to error and compliance gaps. For senior finance leaders, the question is no longer whether to automate, but how to do so in a way that embeds control directly into the operating model.

Drivers of close fatigue

Manual month-end activities create predictable pressure points: intercompany reconciliations, revenue recognition adjustments, lease accounting calculations and journal approvals that span multiple platforms. Each manual transfer of data increases the likelihood of delay, inconsistency or error.

Regulatory expectations continue to rise. Frameworks such as the COSO Internal Control – Integrated Framework emphasise documented controls, segregation of duties and traceable audit trails. In many organisations, these controls still depend on manual review and post-close validation.

The result is a reactive closed cycle. Issues surface at the end of the period, when timelines are tight and corrective action is costly. Automation, when designed correctly, shifts finance from reactive correction to continuous control.

Finance automation best practices

Automation works best when processes are simplified and clearly defined. Finance leaders should map month-end activities end-to-end, identifying dependencies and eliminating unnecessary steps. Standardisation reduces variability and creates the foundation for scalable automation across business units and geographies.

Disconnected ERP, billing, contract and lease systems are a primary cause of reconciliation delays. Integration at the data layer ensures transactions, adjustments and contract changes flow automatically and consistently, giving teams a single source of truth.

Recurring activities such as accruals, amortisation schedules and lease calculations should be governed by predefined system rules. This reduces manual intervention and strengthens audit trails. More advanced automation flags unusual transactions or anomalies during the period rather than after close. By surfacing exceptions early, finance teams avoid last-minute surprises. Increasingly, advanced platforms use embedded intelligence to flag anomalies mid-cycle rather than after close.

Regulatory standards require not only accurate calculations but documented controls. Automated approval flows, version tracking, and role-based access controls ensure that changes to contracts or accounting treatments are captured transparently. When compliance is built into the workflow, audit readiness becomes continuous rather than cyclical.

Dashboards that display reconciliation status, outstanding approvals and exception trends provide finance leaders with visibility throughout the month. Instead of discovering bottlenecks at the end of the cycle, teams can address issues proactively. The shift from periodic reporting to continuous monitoring reduces risk and improves predictability.

Automation as a strategic lever

For organisations with complex revenue models, large lease portfolios or multinational operations, the stakes are higher. Each new pricing structure, geographic expansion or regulatory requirement adds reconciliations and control points to the close. Without automation, headcount and spreadsheet dependency grow alongside complexity.

Well-designed automation enables scale without proportional increases in cost or risk. Systems can absorb higher transaction volumes while maintaining consistent controls and audit trails. Finance teams spend less time gathering and validating data and more time analysing performance, forecasting outcomes and advising the business.

In a regulatory environment that demands transparency and precision, automation is not simply an operational enhancement. It is a governance decision. Finance leaders who take a structured approach create a close process that is faster, more resilient and better aligned to strategic growth.

The post Automate finance, end month end stress appeared first on International Finance.

As per a new report from sales commission software provider Xactly, while average on-target earnings saw a slight dip in 2025 among account executives, who are responsible for finding new business and closing deals, the gap between account executives’ on-target earnings at the 25th and 90th percentiles widened by about 1.7% compared to 2024, reaching from USD 199,000 to USD 195,600. By definition, on-target earnings signify the total pay a salesperson expects when reaching 100% of their sales quota.

Low performers averaged USD 95,000 in on-target earnings, while their high-performing counterparts earned USD 294,000. For sales-oriented companies, the latter have boosted the average annual on-target earnings for account executives with more than five years of experience by USD 26,000 since 2021. Those with one to three years of experience have gained USD 7,300 on an annual basis, while pay for account executives, with less than one year in sales, has gone down by USD 16,000. The professionals with one to three years’ tenure have seen their pay package go down by USD 3,000.

“Organisations are investing in proven, tenured sellers who can deliver more predictable revenue. This change also reflects tighter ROI scrutiny on sales headcount, as companies would rather retain and maximise productivity from experienced AEs than hire fresh talent,” Xactly wrote in its report.

However, it termed this preference a possible representation of a trade-off.

“While it can boost short-term efficiency, it can also weaken long-term outcomes if lower early-career compensation stifles motivation, increases ramp-time attrition, or makes the AE role less appealing,” the Xactly report noted.

For account managers, especially those charged with expanding revenue from and retaining the customers that account executives bring in, things look different. At the 90th on-target earnings percentile, earnings for account managers, in 2025, plummeted by USD 21,000 to USD 245,000, after growing from USD 199,000 to USD 266,000 between 2021 and 2024.

“The gap between account managers’ compensation at the 90th and 25th performance percentiles narrowed by 10.7% in just one year, from USD 181,500 to USD 162,000. This suggests a recalibration in how organisations pay AMs. After a stretch where compensation increasingly favoured top performers, organisations appear to be moving toward more balanced pay structures for AMs,” the report continued.

Many companies will look to tighten pay accelerators by placing more weight on asset managers’ base salary or rewarding account coverage and retention more than pure staff expansion.

The post Sales pay gap grows as firms back top talent: Xactly report appeared first on International Finance.

Discussing its roadmap for the year, the parking operator said, “approximately 5,500 to 7,500 new spaces are expected to be added over the course of 2026, driving revenues for the public parking segment to reach between AED 560 million and AED 610 million (USD 166 million).”

The infrastructure expansion will be accomplished through the opening of additional on-street and open-air parking slots, representing a 3.9% increase over the current public parking portfolio of 193,200 spaces. It is also worth mentioning that the venture last year entered into a strategic agreement with Dubai Holding, to introduce parking solutions across several master-planned communities in Dubai.

Parkin will oversee end-to-end management of parking operations by deploying its advanced digital technologies, enforcement systems and real-time data analytics, which will help the public parking provider to enhance its operational efficiency, apart from optimising parking management across the designated areas. Implementing the concept of controlled parking will reduce the increasing pressure on parking availability across key destinations in Dubai.

Meanwhile, Parkin has made public its operational and financial results for Q4 and the full year 2025. Apart from the overall revenue increasing to AED1.326 billion (USD 361 million) in 2025, up 43% year-on-year, net profit reached AED625.5 million (USD 170.32 million), representing an annual increase of 48%.

In Q4 alone, Parkin posted record revenues of AED389.4 million, marking a 47% increase compared to the tally registered in 2024. The company’s earnings before financing costs, taxes, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA), on the other hand, reached AED232.9 million, reflecting similar growth, while maintaining a 60% margin.

“We closed 2025 with a strong quarter, converting disciplined execution into higher earnings. As in prior periods, we continued to expand our operational footprint, adding both public and developer parking spaces to our portfolio, supported by Dubai’s status as a world-class place to live, work, visit, and invest,” said Eng. Mohamed Abdulla Al Ali, CEO of Parkin.

Breaking down the data segment-wise, Parkin’s public parking revenue increased 29% to AED144.5 million in Q4, supported by factors like an increase in the weighted average hourly tariff to AED3.03 and an increase in the size of the public parking portfolio.

Developer parking revenue, on the other hand, increased 38% to AED28.1 million during the same period, supported by space growth, stronger transaction volumes and the application of the variable tariff in relation to around one third of the developer portfolio.

The company also witnessed revenue increases from seasonal cards and permits in Q4 2025, rising 66% to AED67.4 million. Enforcement revenue increased by 65% to AED127.1 million during the period.

“Seasonal card sales reached record highs as customers continued to recognise the relative value offered by this product. Total transaction volumes were broadly in line with the same period last year, while utilisation moderated as expected, reflecting a greater mix of seasonal card users, as well as the addition of new parking space capacity,” concluded Al Ali.

The post Dubai’s Parkin targets USD 166 million public parking revenues appeared first on International Finance.

“Total revenue increased to USD 1,725.2 million in 2025 from USD 1,429.6 million in 2024, or 20.7%, due to higher lease revenues from newly acquired aircraft, including through business combinations, and increased maintenance revenue. Total assets also increased to USD 16,547.7 million in 2025 from USD 13,033.3 million in 2024, as a result of aircraft acquired during the year,” the venture stated.

The Dubai-based company also spent about USD 5 billion on acquisitions in 2025, including the USD 2 billion purchase of rival Nordic Aviation Capital (NAC).

“Around 2025 was another exceptional year for the DAE franchise. We announced and closed the acquisition of NAC. In total, we acquired 280 and sold 111 aircraft. Our fleet of Owned and Managed aircraft grew by 38% to 604 at year-end 2025. Full-year revenues grew 21% while pre-tax profitability increased 43%, delivering continued improvement in pre-tax profit margin and return on equity,” Firoz Tarapore, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of DAE, said, while mentioning that despite the revenue growth, the balance sheet disciplines of capital adequacy, funding, and liquidity metrics were maintained.

“We intend to be very active on the sell side as well. Mainly for portfolio management purposes,” Firoz Tarapore said during the earnings call on February 4.

Stating that Dubai Aerospace Enterprise Engineering had “a very, very good year,” Firoz Tarapore said that the addition of a new hangar at its Amman, Jordan, added five new widebody and narrowbody capable lines, increasing capacity by approximately 30%. The company now has 22 fully operational lines of heavy maintenance.

“We already were the leading independent airframe heavy maintenance provider in the region, but our new size now takes us closer to the top of the league tables of global independent providers of heavy maintenance. We’re not done yet. I think for us there’s plenty of growth yet,” Firoz Tarapore noted.

The CEO further noted that Dubai Aerospace Enterprise Engineering had raised USD 3.9 billion in long-term debt financing through multiple public and private transactions during the financial year. Revenue grew 13% year-on-year to USD 211 million, while profitability grew 47% to USD 64 million.

The post Dubai Aerospace Enterprise posts USD 702.2 million profit in 2025 appeared first on International Finance.

Elaborating on this in a report, titled “Oman — Listed Insurance Industry Performance Analysis – Q3 2025”, released on December 22, BADRI said that the after-tax profit of the eight listed Omani insurance companies surged by 935%, shifting to a profit of OMR28.4 million (USD 73.9 million) in the first three quarters of this year (Q3 2025), registering a stunning turnaround from a loss of OMR3.4 million in the same period in 2024.

“The Sultanate’s biggest insurer, LIVA, which had recorded a loss the previous year due to adverse weather events, achieved a strong turnaround with a 226% increase in profit in Q3 2025, substantially enhancing overall industry results. Excluding LIVA, the sector still posted a robust 108% year-on-year profit growth. It is important to note that the net profit of takaful companies is reported on a combined basis, encompassing both policyholder and shareholder accounts for comparability,” the study stated.

At the same point in time, conventional insurers achieved a 13% revenue increase, with the cumulative figure rising to OMR472 million in Q3 2025 from OMR417 million in the corresponding period in 2024. LIVA drove this growth by posting a 24% increase and maintaining the largest market share.

“In the Shariah-compliant insurance market, the performance of takaful companies remained consistent with a modest 0.3% growth in revenue that increased marginally from OMR55.0 million in Q3 2024 to OMR55.1 million in Q3 2025. Notably, takaful insurers implemented IFRS 17 during the year, aligning their financial reporting with broader industry standards,” remarked the BADRI study.

Insurance service results for the analysed listed companies surged by 3,452%, rising from OMR0.8 million to OMR29.5 million, mainly due to LIVA’s operational turnaround. Excluding that, the overall increase would be 19% over the Q3 2024 figures.

Predicting the road for the Gulf country’s insurance sector, BADRI concluded, “Rising costs, higher climate-related claims, and aggressive pricing strategies are placing pressure on industry margins. To stay competitive, companies need to enhance risk management, refine pricing models, control expenses, and strengthen their financial position. Looking ahead, insurers that adapt swiftly, leverage advanced data analytics, and proactively plan for emerging risks will be best positioned to succeed in an increasingly challenging market.”

The post From a disastrous 2024, Oman’s insurance sector swings to profits in Q3 2025 appeared first on International Finance.

The Middle Eastern country’s tourism revenue rose by 12.6% year-on-year in November, reaching the USD 606.6 million mark. Most importantly, Jordan’s tourism sector has exceeded its 2024 targets for visitor numbers and revenue under the country’s “Economic Modernisation Vision.”

The development also reflects the sector’s long-term strategy, which prioritises steady expansion, with EMV targets calling for annual growth of around 10% in tourism receipts alongside sustained increases in visitor numbers.

As per the Jordan News Agency (Petra), “The Central Bank attributed the growth to a 14.7% rise in tourist arrivals. Revenue gains were led by visitors from Europe (36.1%), Asia (34.3%), the Americas (18.4%), Arab countries (3.6%), and other nationalities (33.4%). Conversely, tourism revenue from Jordanian expatriates recorded a slight decrease of 0.8%.”

The statement showed that, over the first 11 months of the year, expenditures on travel abroad increased by 5.5%, totalling USD 1.887 billion. Spending on outbound tourism, on the other hand, rose by 11.4% in November, reaching USD 146.1 million. Tourism activities across the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) contributed USD 247.1 billion to the region’s economy in 2024, marking a nearly 32% increase compared with 2019.

According to preliminary data released from the GCC Statistical Centre in September, intra-GCC travel witnessed a sharp rebound, as it rose 52% over the same period, with 19.3 million visitors travelling between member states. Intra-regional tourism accounted for 26.7% of total GCC tourism, highlighting growing cultural integration and regional mobility.

Saudi Arabia continued to set the pace for regional tourism expansion. In 2024, the country welcomed a record 30 million international visitors, up 8% from 2023, generating SR284 billion (USD 75.7 billion) in tourism spending, an 11% increase year on year. Total tourists’ inflow reached approximately 116 million, rising 6% over the previous year.

The post Amid geopolitical volatilities, Jordan’s tourism sector sees 7% revenue jump appeared first on International Finance.

The initial burst of excitement around AI, which lasted from 2023 to 2024, was fueled by hype and billions of dollars in inflows (hundreds of billions of dollars) that many companies rode on without the profits to back it up.

The seven companies that did not need blockbuster profits to draw matching inflows, rocketing valuations based on future potential rather than current performance, are collectively referred to as the Magnificent Seven, which include Microsoft, Google parent Alphabet, Tesla, Amazon, Apple, Facebook parent Meta, and NVIDIA.

So, what connects the first six companies? Other than Apple (which spends a minuscule amount on NVIDIA hardware), they are all major customers of NVIDIA, buying boatloads of the semiconductor giant’s chips to train their large language models (LLMs) and power their AI. This is why NVIDIA ignited the AI rally, and the rally came with gains.

Shares of NVIDIA rose 239% in 2023 and another 171% in 2024, yet another strong year, but the heavyweight tech name has had difficulty finding traction so far in 2025. When the company posted 114% annual revenue growth at the beginning of the year, it was not enough to get traders and investors running to load up on the shares. In 2024 (fiscal 2025), the company reported $130.5 billion in revenue, which was more than double the previous year’s figure of $60.9 billion.

Investor response was a smattering of polite claps, yawns, and just enough buying momentum to keep NVIDIA’s shares relatively flat in the days after the February 26 earnings report that included fiscal 2025 performance. The muted market response might indicate that even the highest expectations had already been built into the price, or that investors are becoming less interested in fundamentals and more enamoured with the notion of stratospheric growth, given that NVIDIA blew out expectations by 265% year-over-year in Q4 2023.

When it comes to pumping their money into AI, investors are now looking at fundamentals like sustainable margins, monetisation strategies, and disciplined capital spending. Companies that can translate AI innovation into reliable, long-term profits will be the winners. Meanwhile, others may find it difficult to justify their higher valuations in a market focused on earnings. Some spending must happen before those earnings can take effect and, of course, be realised.

Capex: Hero or villain?

Capital expenditures (capex) are the money a company allocates to investing in innovation, upgrades, and new assets, such as hardware or software. For example, in the AI world, companies tend to spend on hardware and data centres to support high-performance computing.

The other thing is that capex tends to be much more unpopular with investors because the latter, again, want to see value today, and they want to see value in the next few months. They do not want to see value in the next year, let alone the next decade. With $80 billion in capital expenditure, 2025 has been a year of bold investments, with the “Magnificent Seven” showing their commitment to the future of AI.

Microsoft has invested $80 billion to grow its data centres and AI infrastructure to power its Azure cloud platform and its broader enterprise ecosystem, and its AI chatbot, Copilot, will become a standard part of the toolkit for businesses and consumers to streamline workflow and day-to-day tasks.

Microsoft is at the forefront of generative AI after it backed OpenAI, the parent of ChatGPT, with a 49% stake, thanks to a $13 billion bet, and Alphabet, Google’s parent, has pledged around $75 billion to similar efforts, bolstering its role in AI research and cloud services, much of which is going towards Gemini, Google’s generative AI model.

Amazon is making the biggest bet of all, with capital expenditures over $100 billion for 2025, and much of that will go into AI infrastructure for Amazon Web Services (AWS), the core of its enterprise operations and a key profit driver.

Meta has also sharply increased its guidance to a total of $60 billion to $65 billion, a nearly 70% increase from earlier estimates. Most of that big-ticket spending will be for warehouse-sized data centres to run the AI products across its apps, such as Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.

The other “Magnificent Seven” members, Apple, Tesla, and NVIDIA, have not announced their capex plans, but their forward guidance and spending levels indicate ongoing, large investment in AI and related technologies, such as “Apple Intelligence,” which is the tech giant’s catch-up AI effort; Full Self-Driving (FS) by Tesla, its highest-level driver assistance software; and “Blackwell,” the next big thing in GPU and chip manufacturing for NVIDIA.

When viewed collectively, this investment wave in 2025, representing over $300 billion among the top players alone, is more than an optimistic note and represents a fundamental change in how value will be created in the next decade.

These firms are not backing down on their bold investment initiatives, despite market volatility, occasional pushbacks from investors, and macroeconomic challenges. They are investing today for tomorrow’s growth, knowing that the returns might not be immediate.

In AI 1.0, markets paid for guidance and expectations, but in AI 2.0, they pay for performance. The speculative phase is over, replaced by operational discipline and value creation based on the implementation of new technology.

With high interest rates compared to four years ago, the notion that capital has a cost has been reintroduced, and the focus has returned to those who have the upper hand, namely the big infrastructure players with pricing power and established supply chains.

What to expect in 2026

After a couple of years of heady share-price gains followed by a frenetic race to build out infrastructure, the market is now moving on to a new phase, one of execution, efficiency, and results.

Looking forward to 2026, three trends will be key to the AI earnings cycle, and enterprise adoption will be the true test. Is it being paid for at scale? Are workflows changing in ways that are both significant and monetizable? Do consumers need AI daily? These questions will require quick answers.

Energy prices rise, and infrastructure costs are high. The leaner, more efficient companies will be able to hold the line on profitability.

Competitive moats will matter, and by 2026, investors will need to know: Who owns the data? Who controls distribution? Who has proprietary models, scale advantages, or ecosystem lock-in? As the space matures, staying power, not just innovation, will differentiate the leaders from the waning hype.

Moreover, the companies that demonstrate resilience will be those capable of converting their massive AI investments into tangible, revenue-generating products and services. While the early phase of the AI boom rewarded ambition, the next phase will reward operational precision.

Investors will scrutinise not only how much companies spend, but how efficiently those dollars translate into ecosystem advantages, customer retention, and recurring revenue models. The winners will distinguish themselves through strategic discipline by balancing cutting-edge research with commercial clarity, securing critical infrastructure partnerships, and maintaining supply chains that can withstand global uncertainty.

Also, governments are moving toward stricter oversight of AI training data, model transparency, and the environmental impact of data centre expansion. Companies that anticipate these shifts, incorporating compliance into their core strategies rather than treating it as a last-minute obligation, will navigate the landscape with fewer disruptions and lower long-term costs.

Traditional tech giants will no longer be the only ones capable of delivering advanced AI solutions. Leaner, specialised firms may carve out niches in sectors such as healthcare, manufacturing, and cybersecurity. In this environment, adaptability becomes as critical as scale, and companies unable to evolve quickly will risk losing relevance despite earlier advantages.

The post Wall Street stops clapping for AI appeared first on International Finance.