Skip to main content

Unprofitable dinner

After the usual tedious journey to Riga, I attended the kind of dinner that wealth managers inflict on their customers. I happen to have a long history with these particular wealth managers, so received an invitation- probably to make up the numbers, since we have not transacted any business.

If I sound a little jaded, well, perhaps I am- the speaker was interesting in himself, but the topic- trying to institutionalize entrepreneurship- was not really what the first- really only- generation of Baltic millionaires is yet ready for. It was, of course a plug for the services that this particular house provides, and frankly, given the pleasant venue and good wine, fair enough.  Yet as so often in the past I was struck by the way that the large investment houses have a tin ear for the process of innovation and change that is hitting financial businesses around the world. 

They seek to trade on a brand which reflects "centuries of tradition and continuity", yet this particular house, while maintaining the same name, has been through at least four separate mergers and de-mergers- all of them value destroying- in the course of the last fifteen years. The fundamental brand equity, when you come down to it, is a big fat zero. There is little fundamental difference between this house and some no-name spivs also out there in the market. The DNA of the institution was long ago compromised, and the decades-long careers of the people I used to know has been replaced by a very much shorter-run attention span.

Neither truly based on traditions and long-term culture, nor particularly innovative, it is easy to see that this house has been the victim and not the moving force in the industry. Yet they will not change- they regard "Conservatism", in all meanings of the word, as the last best hope for retaining customer loyalty and with it their place in the market.

I think that this is wrong.

The storm of 2008 will be repeated, and possibly quite soon. This time, the power of disruptive technology will circumvent the outmoded business models of classical banking. Disruptive dis-intermediation, whether from Transferwise or peer-to-peer businesses, is already active in the financial market place. The classical investment houses are relying on the accumulated capital of decades to be able to buy- or break- this new competition. 

Except, there isn't any. The broken brands and wasted value involved in the consolidation of the banks leading up to the crisis has left the banks rather short- and what nimble entrepreneur would want to enter into the corporate embrace of decayed, hierarchical systems in any event?

So the lesson of a good dinner was that what the banks offer has changed very little, but the world has changed a lot and is about to change a lot more. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and

We need to talk about UK corruption

After a long hiatus, mostly to do with indolence and partly to do with the general election campaign, I feel compelled to take up the metaphorical pen and make a few comments on where I see the situation of the UK in the aftermath of the "Brexit election". OK, so we lost.  We can blame many reasons, though fundamentally the Conservatives refused to make the mistakes of 2017 and Labour and especially the Liberal Democrats made every mistake that could be made.  Indeed the biggest mistake of all was allowing Johnson to hold the election at all, when another six months would probably have eaten the Conservative Party alive.  It was Jo Swinson's first, but perhaps most critical, mistake to make, and from it came all the others.  The flow of defectors and money persuaded the Liberal Democrat bunker that an election could only be better for the Lib Dems, and as far as votes were concerned, the party did indeed increase its vote by 1.3 million.   BUT, and it really is the bi

Breaking the Brexit logjam

The fundamental problem of Brexit has not been that the UK voted to leave the European Union. The problem has been the fact that the vote was hijacked by ignorant, grandstanding fools who interpreted the vote as a will to sever all and every link between the UK and the European Union. That was then and is now a catastrophic policy. To default to WTO rules, when any member of the WTO could stop that policy was a recipe for the UK to be held hostage by any state with an act to grind against us. A crash out from the EU, without any structure to cope, was an act of recklessness that should disqualify anyone advocating it from any position of power whatsoever. That is now the most likely option because the Conservative leadership, abetted by the cowardly extremism of Corbyn, neither understood the scale of the crisis, now had any vision of how to tackle it. Theresa May is a weak and hapless Prime Minster, and her problems started when she failed to realize that there was a compromise that