type: user

role: user

content: Assess the competitive position of the EU neobank sector for Q2 2026. Focus on funding trends and regulatory headwinds.


type: assistant

role: assistant

content: Starting with primary sources. Per our standing source-quality rule: prefer SEC equivalents and ESMA filings over press releases and blog posts. Treating trade-press funding numbers as unverified unless corroborated by a filing or a named investor.


content: What did you find on funding?


content: Three ESMA-filed prospectuses confirm Q2 2026 neobank funding is down approximately 35% year-over-year, driven by tightened MiFID II marketing restrictions on retail investment products. This is a confirmed, filing-backed conclusion. I am rejecting the earlier TechCrunch lead claiming a 50% drop; that figure came from a single unnamed source and is not corroborated by any filing. Going forward, we should not use TechCrunch funding figures for EU neobank sizing unless a filing corroborates them.


content: And the regulatory headwinds?


content: Recurring analyst assumption to preserve for future runs: EU neobank valuations should be benchmarked against traditional bank multiples adjusted downward for regulatory capital requirements, not against US fintech multiples. The US-fintech-comparables framing used in several sell-side notes overstates neobank value because it ignores MiFID II capital constraints.


content: Good. What should we exclude going forward?


content: Standing scoping boundary: exclude crypto-native and stablecoin-first institutions from the EU neobank coverage set unless explicitly requested; they operate under a different regulatory regime and distort the funding-trend comparison. Source caveat: the 35% decline figure is only as current as the May 2026 filings; it may shift when the June 2026 cycle posts.