Cross-Border Hiring Between London and Paris: What's Changed in 2026

Cross-border hiring has always been central to European financial services. For decades, talent moved relatively freely between London and Paris — and between those hubs and the wider continent — giving firms access to a deep and flexible workforce.

In 2026, that model is under real strain. Regulatory divergence between the UK and EU, widening compensation gaps, and a shift in what candidates are willing to accept for a cross-border move are all making international hiring harder to execute. For employers in investment banking and asset management, the challenge is no longer simply identifying the right person. It is navigating a more fragmented environment where compliance timelines, pay expectations, and candidate priorities vary significantly between markets.

1. Regulatory Divergence Is Creating Practical Friction

Since Brexit, the UK and France have moved further apart on employment regulation, and this is now having a direct impact on hiring timelines and candidate decision-making.

In the UK, the FCA's Senior Managers and Certification Regime continues to evolve, with firms needing to ensure incoming hires – particularly at senior levels – meet specific conduct and competency standards before they can be approved. In France, the AMF operates its own framework, and there is limited mutual recognition (or communication) between the two regimes. A managing director moving from a London-based advisory firm to a Paris operation cannot simply transfer their regulatory standing. The process must restart, and this adds weeks to an already complex hiring cycle.

Beyond regulation, practical barriers have increased. UK nationals no longer have automatic work rights in France, and French nationals face a more complex visa process in the UK than they did pre-Brexit. We are seeing senior candidates — people who would previously have relocated without hesitation — pause or withdraw from processes when they realise the administrative burden involved, even if more firms offer support through relocation agents.

The result is that many firms are defaulting to local hiring where they can, not because the local talent pool is necessarily stronger, but because the compliance timeline for a cross-border hire has become difficult to justify when a mandate needs filling quickly. 'CDI' notice periods in France are also three months, compared to the standard one month for associate-level bankers seen in London. When you need deal support fast, this really plays against French talent looking to explore roles in the UK.

2. Compensation Gaps Are Harder to Bridge Than They Appear

Differences in pay between London and Paris have always existed, but they are becoming more difficult to manage – particularly at VP and director levels, where competition for strong candidates is most intense.

London continues to command a premium in investment banking. At VP level, total compensation packages in M&A advisory typically range from £220,000 to £400,000+, while Paris equivalents tend to sit between €200,000 and €300,000. At first glance, the gap looks modest. But when you factor in France's significantly higher social charges — employer contributions can exceed 45% of gross salary — the cost to the firm of a Paris-based hire is often comparable to or higher than a London equivalent, even though the candidate's net take-home is lower.

This creates a persistent tension. Candidates moving from London to Paris often feel they are taking a pay cut, even when the employer is spending more. And candidates in Paris who benchmark their compensation internationally — which is increasingly common — can feel underpaid relative to London peers doing comparable work. Lunch breaks at least tend to be a bit longer on the Continent.

For firms operating across both markets, this means compensation conversations have become more complex. It is no longer enough to present a competitive offer by local standards. Employers need to explain the full picture: how social protections, pension contributions, and quality-of-life factors fit into the overall package. The firms that do this well tend to close cross-border hires more successfully. Those that simply present a headline number often lose candidates to better-framed competing offers.

3. Candidates Are Setting a Higher Bar for Relocation

Professionals in investment banking and asset management are still open to international moves, but the threshold has risen. A slightly better title or a modest compensation uplift is no longer sufficient to persuade a VP or director to uproot their family and navigate a new regulatory environment.

What we hear consistently from candidates considering a London-to-Paris or Paris-to-London move is that the role itself needs to represent a genuine step change. They want clearer client ownership, a broader mandate, or access to a sector or product they cannot get in their current market. The transactional elements — pay, title, location — are necessary but not sufficient.

This is particularly pronounced among mid-career professionals with families. School systems differ significantly between the UK and France, the cost of international schooling is substantial, and partners' careers must also be accommodated. These are not new considerations, but candidates are weighing them more heavily than they were three or four years ago, when the post-pandemic appetite for change was still high.

For employers, the implication is that cross-border hiring now requires a more compelling narrative. The role description, the team, the growth trajectory, and the firm's strategic direction all need to be articulated clearly and early in the process. Candidates who are asked to relocate want to understand not just what they will be doing on day one but also where the role leads over three to five years.

4. Local Talent Strategies Are Becoming More Sophisticated

In response to these pressures, many firms are investing more seriously in local hiring capabilities rather than relying on cross-border mobility as a default.

In Paris, we are seeing asset management firms and boutique advisory houses build stronger local pipelines by engaging earlier with candidates — often well before a formal vacancy exists. Some are establishing relationships with professionals at competitor firms over 12 to 18 months so that when a role opens, the conversation is already advanced.

In London, firms that have historically recruited from European talent pools are placing greater emphasis on developing internal candidates and promoting from within, particularly at the VP-to-director transition, where external cross-border hires have become harder to land.

This does not mean cross-border hiring is disappearing. For specialist roles — a sector coverage banker with deep industrial expertise or a portfolio manager with a specific French mid-cap mandate — the international search remains essential because the local pool is simply too small. But for broader roles where several candidates could be credible, firms are increasingly choosing the path of least friction, and that usually means hiring locally.

Conclusion

Cross-border hiring between London and Paris remains important for investment banking and asset management firms, but it requires more planning, more patience, and a more thoughtful approach than it did even two years ago.

The regulatory environment is more complex, the compensation conversation is more nuanced, and candidates are more selective about when and why they move. Firms that treat cross-border hiring as a standard recruitment exercise will find it increasingly frustrating. Those that invest in understanding the specific friction points — and that build compelling propositions for candidates who are being asked to make a significant life change — will continue to access the best talent across both markets.

‍