The role that it was established to play is - according to its own mission statement - to add value to deals in places where it is most needed. But nowadays you can expect to see the EIB crop up in markets conventionally seen as plenty liquid on their own.
A few examples of these are Finland where it is helping finance roads (E18) and hydropower plants; a tram in Bordeaux and Montpellier (France); schools in Lanarkshire (Scotland); an extension to the Docklands Light Rail in London; a hospital in Newcastle, north England - to name but a few.
 And what's more, you can expect to see EIB getting stuck into the next wave of England's schools programmes, the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) deals.
EIB does everything cheaper and so gets itself position. However, it's becoming increasingly apparent that it is cherry-picking deals, using the structured finance facility to squeeze out the commercial banking market.
These days, the bank is not seeking out difficult, marginal deals where it would add value - it is merely crowding out the commercial market, abusing its position to the detriment of the market as a whole.
There is no shortage of liquidity in the market, hence EIB is squeezing out banks in deals where the economics do not need EIB's support and appetite is already strong.
Such deals are, in any case, way outside the bank's charter. According to its own website, the bank's role is to act as 'the European Union's financing institution, to contribute towards the integration, balanced development and economic and social cohesion of the member countries'.
Now that simply does not stack up when you look at the projects it has been doing on the home front… and, indeed, further afield - a power plant in Syria; SMEs in Morocco and Nigeria; hydropower in Laos; oil refinery and car tyre plant in Brazil; wastewater in Turkey; even a cheeky CCGT in Egypt… you name it, EIB's involved.
The question that needs to be answered is - what is EIB doing and have its parameters been changed?
The guidelines are quite clear. Many people are starting to think that the bank is manipulating these guidelines to lend to its 'zoned regions' - areas of economic deprivation.
It seems indisputable that the bank is pushing the boundaries (if not bending the rules) to go for low-hanging fruit - Finland's E18 being one of the best examples of this.
Now, why would this be happening?
EIB does not operate like a normal bank - its goal is to get the money out the door, and if the projects aren't there, the pressure is on to keep the cash moving - and that's the sort of pressure that leads to the bending of rules.
But this is no new phenomenon, EIB got involved with some of the early UK gas power stations which were already financed by banks. All it did was to undercut the banks' pricing.
Needless to say, the sponsors were delighted as they walked away with cheap, fixed-rate prices - meaning that the banks lost out.
And what value did EIB add? Not a jot - it doesn't even take much risk most of the time.
Talking to people around the industry, views can range from: 'Well, they do have a role to play' to the other end of the scale - 'It's a job creation scheme for a bunch of Euro-crats'. And the banker who said that to me will be delighted to see that off-the-record means just that at IJ!
EIB is not meant to be in the business of crowding out the banks, it is meant to be in the business of providing additional liquidity - not soaking up capacity.
While EBRD's role is clear-cut and defines - lending money to central and eastern Europe - no such restrictions are placed on EIB.
Its value add is appreciated by the sponsors who want EIB in because it means they will get more dividends out, but it's about time it took a more responsible approach to the market and took a look at its own mission statement.
Let's see