ING is adding another dimension to the Dutch banking earnings story. In its second-quarter release, the bank reported net profit of €1.947 billion and fee income of €1.278 billion, with fees up 14% from a year earlier. That gives the result a source of growth beyond the movement in interest margins.
ING’s second-quarter release also reported €15.2 billion of net core lending growth and €15.9 billion of net core deposit growth. Mobile primary customers increased by 377,000 during the quarter. These figures describe the group, not lending and deposits in the Netherlands alone.
Customer growth is useful only if the relationship deepens
For a bank, a customer who uses the account for everyday financial activity can be more valuable than one attracted by a temporary savings rate. Payments, savings and borrowing create different opportunities to earn income. But the existence of an account does not establish that all those opportunities will be realised.
The analytical question is whether additional activity produces income after the costs of acquiring and serving the customer. Marketing, compliance, technology and fraud prevention all sit behind a digital relationship. A larger customer base can spread fixed costs, but it can also create new service obligations.
That is why fee growth deserves attention alongside customer additions. The two measures are connected commercially without being interchangeable. A count of newly active users cannot be converted directly into an earnings forecast.
Deposits and lending need to be read together
Deposit inflows give a bank funding, while new lending creates assets intended to earn a return. Their timing, pricing and maturity determine whether the combination improves profitability. Comparing the two growth totals alone cannot establish that the new business carries an attractive spread.
Loan quality is equally important. Faster growth can look beneficial before losses emerge. A useful follow-up to a strong quarter is therefore to examine credit costs and the composition of lending, rather than assume that all balance-sheet expansion has the same risk.
The distinction matters for Dutch readers comparing ING with ABN Amro’s income outlook. Different geographic footprints and product mixes mean that one bank’s quarter is not a clean proxy for the other. The domestic mortgage market is part of the analysis, not the entire explanation.
A broader earnings mix still requires discipline
Fee income can reduce dependence on a single source of revenue, but it is not automatically stable. Transaction volumes, investment activity and customers’ willingness to pay for services can change. A bank can diversify its income and remain exposed to the same underlying household or business confidence.
DBR’s reading of the quarter is therefore measured: the operating evidence supports looking beyond interest rates, but it does not eliminate the need to examine costs and risk. The next useful comparison is whether customer activity, fees and cash profitability continue to move together.
The Netherlands’ pension transition provides a separate view of how the country’s financial system is changing. For bank earnings, however, the immediate test remains closer to the customer: which services are being used, what they earn and what it costs to deliver them.