On Santander, Risk Free Rates and Capital Stacks
The House of Santander
It is easy to forget, amid the abstractions of balance sheets and digital banking dashboards, that banks are living institutions, bearing the imprint of those who shape them. Banco Santander, founded in 1857 in the eponymous Spanish port city, is not merely a financial entity. It is a house, in the truest sense of the word. One built over generations, brick by brick, under the stewardship of families, financiers, and reformers who understood that the fortunes of a bank mirror those of the society it serves.
Today, Santander sits astride the banking world as one of Europe’s most formidable institutions. It has survived monarchies and republics, autarky and globalisation, and now turns itself towards the post-pandemic, inflation-shadowed, rate-volatility present with a quiet but confident resolve. The numbers, though strong, only tell part of the story. In 2024, the bank posted a full-year net profit of €12.57 billion, the largest in its history. Its return on tangible equity reached 16.3 percent, with guidance now pointing toward 17 percent by the end of this year. For most banks in continental Europe, still burdened by anaemic loan growth and post-2008 risk aversion, such performance would appear exceptional. At Santander, it is becoming routine.
The secret, if there is one, lies in the geometry of the bank’s structure. Santander is not a monolith but rather a network of local champions stitched into a global fabric. It derives strength from scale, yes, but also from rootedness. Spain and Brazil remain its most reliable pillars, with retail banking accounting for the majority of profits. In the fourth quarter of 2024 alone, earnings from retail climbed 26 percent year-on-year. Yet beyond these anchors, Santander has learned to adapt—fluidly and often ahead of peers—to shifting markets and regulatory climates.One sees this agility most clearly in the performance of its corporate and investment banking division, which more than doubled its net profit in the same quarter, benefitting from rising demand for structured financing and trade solutions across Iberian and Latin American corridors. Conversely, the digital consumer bank, a source of great strategic ambition, found itself weighed down by a sharp profit contraction of 66 percent, much of it due to a £295 million provision linked to a UK probe into historical misconduct in auto lending. Still, even setbacks here are instructive. They reveal the bank’s willingness to confront risk early, provision decisively, and maintain credibility with regulators and the public.
Nowhere is this commitment to credibility under greater scrutiny than in the United Kingdom. Santander UK, a business long considered a jewel in the bank’s diversification strategy, has endured a difficult period. Full-year pre-tax profits in 2024 fell 38 percent to £1.3 billion, with revenues sliding by 10 percent. The proposed closure of 95 branches this June—affecting 750 employees—will reduce the footprint to 349 branches, a stark retrenchment but also a reflection of the changing behavioural patterns of British customers who now bank overwhelmingly online. The move has not escaped political commentary. Yet Ana Botín, the bank’s executive chair and architect of its recent transformation, was unequivocal. The UK, she said, remains a core market.
To understand that insistence, one must appreciate how deeply the Botín family has embedded itself within the DNA of Santander. Emilio Botín Sr., Ana’s father, ran the bank with a blend of vision and discipline that turned a modest Cantabrian lender into a European force. Ana Botín, who assumed the chair in 2014 following her father’s death, has pursued a different path, emphasising digitalisation, risk culture, and operating efficiency. Her style is understated but precise. Under her stewardship, Santander has not only delivered record returns but also committed €10 billion to share buybacks from the 2025 and 2026 earnings, a move few European peers can match in confidence or scale.
If you haven’t reserved your copy of The Fragility Matrix yet, do so now. This 7-part investigative report is already making waves among institutional allocators, hedge funds, PE/VC professionals, and sovereign wealth strategists. Built on exclusive proprietary data, it maps hidden risks — from GCC capital flows to fragile-state innovation, CLO 2.0 landmines, FX illusions in EMs, European carve-out distortions, and capital stack reshuffling.
More details below:
![[Report] THE FRAGILITY MATRIX: Mapping Global Capital](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_140,h_140,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa47a5aa1-cf90-45df-84b9-e6c2ff244d6a_400x400.png)
What distinguishes Santander is not simply size but coherence. It is one of the few banks in the world that can say, without exaggeration, that it operates across the full arc of finance—from rural credit in São Paulo to structured notes for family offices in Madrid, from fintech ventures in Warsaw to mortgage lending in West Yorkshire. And yet, it rarely appears overextended. Part of this is down to a capital discipline that is both conservative and dynamic. The core Tier 1 capital ratio, now at 13 percent, offers insulation against volatility and regulatory tightening, while providing room for calibrated risk-taking.
It is tempting, especially in a market era so obsessed with disruption and innovation, to underestimate institutions that are deemed legacy. But Santander resists such categorisation. It is neither legacy nor insurgent. It is something rarer: an incumbent that learns. The management understands that the future of banking will not be won through apps or slogans alone, but through credibility, balance sheet strength, local trust, and a nimbleness honed over generations.
For all the complexities of Basel capital buffers and digital transformation roadmaps, Santander’s story remains ultimately human. The figures are important, but the judgment of those steering the bank—their temperament, timing, and tolerance for complexity—matters more. The House of Santander endures not because it has avoided crisis, but because it has internalised the discipline of resilience.
Reading the Stack
There are moments in capital markets when it is neither valuation nor sentiment that sets the tone, but structure—plain, unembellished structure. Mispricing, in these contexts, is not the product of market inefficiency in the classical sense. It is born of a deeper dislocation. A gap between legal certainty and financial interpretation. Between balance sheet mechanics and operational pretence. And between capital providers who know precisely where they sit in the stack, and those who are still guessing.
In recent months, a number of publicly traded entities—many of them legacies of earlier economic cycles—have become test cases for such dynamics. These are not companies with credible paths to growth or innovation. They are, instead, case studies in financial engineering, wrapped in varying degrees of operational inertia and legal ambiguity. What makes them interesting is not their future, but their structure. And what makes them tradeable is not belief, but optionality.
To understand these opportunities, one must begin with a simple truth: in periods of financial stress or structural transition, equity often ceases to behave like a residual claim. It becomes, instead, a derivative instrument. A contingent claim on legal outcomes, refinancing windows, asset disposal velocity, or management’s willingness to cede control. It can trade as a call option on a liability management exercise, or as a narrative instrument when the company in question enjoys the temporary privilege of public attention. But what it rarely is, in such circumstances, is equity in the traditional sense.
Consider a firm in post-reorganisation mode. The legal shell is new, the capital structure partially refreshed, and the public disclosure slightly more polished than it was six quarters ago. Yet the actual enterprise remains largely unchanged. In such cases, the stack rarely aligns with market perception. Subordinated paper may be trading at 40 cents, implying severe impairment, while the equity rallies on the back of activist involvement or a well-worded investor day presentation. This is not mispricing in the conventional sense. It is misalignment in timeline, in access, and in information symmetry. The debt markets may be discounting covenant breach risk and imminent liquidity stress. The equity, meanwhile, is often responding to a completely different set of variables—media attention, new board appointments, or the mere entrance of a known investor.
The fulcrum in these situations does not always sit where it is assumed. And it is here that the capital stack begins to matter in a very specific way. If one knows where the real control point lies—whether in a convertible tranche, a structured preferred, or a covenant-rich revolver—then one can begin to model outcomes with a different degree of precision. This is not equity research. It is capital structure analysis with legal overlays, involving the interpretation of indentures, intercreditor agreements, and the strategic intent of each capital provider.
There are, naturally, risks. Legal processes move slowly. Disclosure is rarely clean. And the market’s capacity for narrative absorption often exceeds its grasp of structural nuance. But for those equipped with the requisite skillset—the ability to read both financial statements and trust indentures with fluency—these moments can be productive. The pricing inefficiencies are not transient. They are systemic, shaped by regulatory ambiguity, uneven information access, and the simple fact that public equity markets are rarely designed to incorporate legal risk into real-time pricing.
Ultimately, what matters is not the story the company tells, but the sequence of outcomes available to those who control the capital stack. When liquidity tightens and maturity walls approach, it is no longer about strategy. It is about structure. And in structure, the most valuable asset is not cash flow. It is influence. Influence over timing, over decision-making, over the final shape of the balance sheet.
It is tempting to look at these cases through the lens of turnaround potential. But that misses the point. These are not turnarounds in the operational sense. They are transitions in control. And control, in such environments, is a tradeable commodity.
Modelling in Motion: The Trouble with Today’s Risk-Free Rate
For all its supposed certainty, the so-called "risk-free rate" is, in practice, anything but static. In theoretical finance, the term refers to a return on an investment with no credit risk, no default risk, and no ambiguity about repayment. Yet, when analysts and asset managers reach for a concrete benchmark, they invariably land on the yield of the ten-year United States Treasury note. It is not because it is perfect, but because it is the best available: a deeply liquid, dollar-denominated government security with global acceptance and an uninterrupted history of payment. In a world defined by relative judgments, it stands alone in breadth and perceived safety.
That being said, the notion that this instrument is “risk-free” in the real world invites quiet scepticism. A brief glance at its recent yield history tells a rather more complex story. From the spring of 2023 through to the second quarter of 2025, the ten-year yield has oscillated between 3.3 and 5.0 per cent, often with startling pace. There are entire asset classes which do not experience such volatility. Yet here is the bedrock upon which pension funds discount liabilities, venture capitalists calculate hurdle rates, and investment banks structure long-term capital cost models.
What this volatility reveals is that there is no such thing as a truly riskless rate once you admit the passage of time. Duration risk, long viewed as benign in sovereign instruments, reasserts itself with unbending clarity when inflation expectations become less anchored and monetary policy becomes less predictable. A move of over 150 basis points within a single year introduces profound distortions across models predicated on steady-state assumptions. Equity valuation frameworks, such as discounted cash flow models and capital asset pricing models, suffer particular strain. When the base rate used to discount future cash flows is subject to wide fluctuations, even well-reasoned models begin to produce outputs that diverge meaningfully from economic reality.
The ten-year yield, in that sense, is no longer purely a reflection of inflation expectations or Fed policy. It is increasingly a barometer of global capital flows, of fiscal credibility, and of the changing structure of the Treasury market itself. The end of quantitative easing, coupled with persistent fiscal issuance and waning foreign appetite for Treasuries, has reintroduced a term premium that had been largely absent for the better part of a decade. The consequence is a market-driven long bond that reflects more than just macro fundamentals; it also reflects portfolio constraints, geopolitical hedging, and liquidity preference shifts.
This creates an awkward tension in professional valuation. On the one hand, the ten-year Treasury remains the best proxy for a risk-free anchor, particularly in models that seek to estimate intrinsic value over long horizons. On the other, its volatility injects instability into those very models, complicating the assessment of fair value. The analyst, then, is left with a choice: either accept the volatility of the input as a reflection of real-world uncertainty or impose a more stylised, smoothed assumption that trades realism for model stability.
What this ultimately underscores is the broader evolution of what we consider "risk-free." No instrument, however theoretically sound, is immune to the practical effects of market structure, policy shifts, and behavioural flow dynamics. The ten-year note may still be the least risky instrument available, but its yield is no longer divorced from the forces that drive broader risk assets. It is a reminder that finance, for all its equations and simplifications, remains deeply intertwined with human judgement, and that even the safest assets must contend with a world that refuses to sit still.
—
As always, thank you for reading.
As we continue exploring the complexities of global markets together, I’m genuinely humbled by the growth of this community—now 56,000+ strong. It’s an honor to engage with such an insightful and globally diverse audience, with readers spanning 101 countries, from the United States to Switzerland.
Your feedback and engagement have been instrumental in shaping the topics I explore. If you've found value in these perspectives, I’d love for you to share this newsletter with your networks. Together, we’re fostering deeper discussions and critical thinking about where the markets are heading. Please write to me at kam@amanahcapital.uk