New Bank, Old Bank

In response to the financial crisis of 2008 many of the worst affected banks adopted a “Good Bank, Bad Bank” strategy. In this they hived off their most toxic assets into what was referred to as the Bad Bank, leaving the cream (most profitable?) of their business in an entity referred to as the Good Bank. With this the Bad Bank and the troubles related with it were essentially left to someone else to sort out, often a government and the taxpayers.

Why do I recap on this? Well, I think that we will soon see a variation that I call “New Bank, Old Bank”. The trigger for this is the difficulty many banks are having bringing their legacy systems, legacy products/activities, legacy data and indeed legacy clients up to the standards required to meet current and future regulations.

Legacy systems have long been cited as an issue for large and long established banks. They all operate complex sets of poorly understood systems, many of which are based on technologies dating back to the 1980’s (and before?) ie pre world-wide-web, pre mobile phones, etc. The effort to maintain and upgrade them has been enormous, but so is the effort required to consolidate and replace them. Now the new regulations are forcing many banks to make multiple changes to long neglected technology and not surprisingly it is often proving very difficult and sometimes nigh impossible.

Likewise new regulations are placing new obligations and operational standards on old products and activities. It is not uncommon to hear the complaint that “that was not the way this was made to work!” The additional cost related to compliance for these products will almost always have a detrimental impact on their profitability, making them far less attractive and in some cases unprofitable to maintain.

Data used to be the forgotten child of Banking operations with an attitude that “those that can do while those that can’t, do data management”. The trouble is that most of the new regulations strive for greater transparency and a degree of related reporting that is demanding data that has not been collected or stored before. Indeed many of the systems have inflexible data structures with poorly maintained data and significant inconsistencies between data stores. As a result few can have high confidence that what they are reporting or will report is completely accurate, something I expect regulators to pick up on.

Lastly, many banks are driven by market share and client base. They are hugely acquisitive of new business and very protective of old business. The problem is that many of the new regulations require extensive co-operation from those clients, old and new. Not all of those clients are inclined, intent or able let alone ready to do that. Large retail and globally diverse client groups prove the most demanding in this respect and it seems ironic that it is a truism that most client service/relationship teams I have worked with seem reluctant to actually talk to a client about anything and especially not the impact of these new regulations.

It is clearly not an easy task for a large established bank to make and keep itself fully compliant. In contrast new banks, like Metro Bank are starting from a clean base. Yes they are still rather small and may still make mistakes, but they have a better chance of success as they are not held back by the legacies I describe above.

So what? Well it seems logical to me that some of those banks will look to make the “New Bank, Old Bank” split. In this they will create a New Bank that utilises a lean set of well architected modern systems and technologies, undertakes only activities and provides products that fit with the new world and regulations and supports this with higher quality data on a smaller set of current clients that “get” the requirements of modern finance. This would then be their prime vehicle moving forward.

The rest will be left in an Old Bank, but what would become of this? Well it could be managed (and run down over time?) separately, maybe a bit like aspects of Lehman’s are still being managed. I suspect though that it is more likely to follow what happened in the insurance fund world, someone will see an opportunity and there will likely be consolidation of a number of Old Banks by a specialist service provider.

One of the benefits(?) is that it would reduce the size of some of the largest banks, reducing the “too big to fail” concerns, something many regulators and politicians would like to see,

I have spoken about this with a number of people and few have rejected the idea, but it is not without its problems.

One of the main ones is that the split will create an implicit admission that the Old Banks will be less compliant. This will not be an easy message for politicians, but may be the acceptable price. It may also prompt clients to review and update their own business models if they want to work with New Banks and benefit from the related protection.

There would also be huge issues in separating technology, controls, data and staff, but with the “Good Bank, Old Bank” splits we have seen that where there is a will there is a way.

Lastly, once the best and cleanest business is hived off into a New Bank, who will underwrite the risk of failure of the Old Bank? I am sure this is something the smart brains of the financial world can solve…..if they want to.

Though right now this split is optional, looking forward I suspect it will become a “must do” for many organisations if they are to survive without regulatory sanction.

I would be interested to hear the views of others?

Find the Right Consulting Engagement

Have you ever taken an engagement that appeared to be a good fit only to have it morph into something less, maybe a lot less satisfying? Well they do say hindsight is a wonderful thing and we can all look back on roles we would not take again, but surely it would be better to assess them beforehand and avoid the (mutual?) disappointment. After all, an unhappy client is unlikely to recommend you to others.

There is a simple review one can perform that will help weed out the less appropriate assignments. In this piece I will outline what that review is, but first in order to keep it simple, I will make some reasonable assumptions

1. The consultant is smart, a term refers to the many dimensions of intelligence rather than dress ie they can read, write, listen, analyse and generally communicate and interact with others in the top 10% of the working population. I won’t attempt to assess that here, just be honest with yourself and take on board all the feedback you receive.
2. The client wants “smart” else they would be taking on a standard temporary or contract resource. There is nothing more draining for a person than having their intelligence under-utilised over a sustained period of time.
3. The client has a good enough understanding of what they want to achieve through engaging the consultant. One would like to think this was a given, but experience shows that it is not always so. If they don’t have the necessary understanding, then your first task, if you want the role, is to help them build it.
4. We will not consider in this piece the readiness/receptiveness of the client’s organisation to your work and capabilities. These do need considering and will be the subject of a future piece, but not here and not now.

So we come to a classic two-by-two matrix.

The axes in this matrix are “Leadership” and “Experience”.

To expand in these simple terms the leadership axis illustrates the degree of leadership (of the desired outcome) expected of the consultant by the client. At the right hand end the consultant is considered to be fully accountable for delivering the expected outcome/product and is expected to be fully “hands on” while at the left hand end the client retains full accountability and provides all the necessary leadership.

The experience axis is an indicator of specific and direct experience of having delivered an identical or very similar outcome before. It is not a comment on more generic skills and industry experience, but those specific to the engagement in question.

While there is inevitably a continuum of values along the two axes, we will divide each in two to simplify consideration. This gives us the ubiquitous four squares that deserve individual inspection.

Starting bottom left and working clockwise I have labelled the first “Resource”. This is where the client is looking at the consultant as living, intelligent body that can be directed by the client, but does not necessarily bring related experience to the work that will be assigned.

The next one is labelled “Advisory” and is where the client is looking for deep and proven experience/expertise that will inform and/or augment their own resources. They are not looking at the consultant to provide leadership in delivery of the final outcome.

The third is labelled “Repeated Change” and refers to delivering, with leadership and relevant experience and expertise, a change that is the same as or very similar to something they have done before. An example could be delivering the operating model for and the eventual outsourcing of a business function.

The last, and possibly the most exciting, is where a consultant’s intelligence and leadership skills are engaged to deliver a new change; new to the consultant, almost certainly new to the client and possibly new to the industry. The consultant is expected to skilfully navigate unknown waters, bringing others with them to deliver the desired outcome.

I hope you can see the value of this visualisation? Firstly consider where you as a consultant work best and/or want to work and identify that location on the matrix. If you don’t know yourself then it will not be surprising if you end up in the wrong roles. A couple of simple questions will help. Do you like leading or being led? Do you prefer to do and learn new things or repeat what you are familiar with?

Next consider what the client is asking of you and indeed what they need; not necessarily the same thing. If you plot these on the matrix you can start understanding (and possibly discussing with the client) the gap in expectations. As a rule of thumb the greater the gap, the more uncomfortable and possibly unsuccessful the engagement will be.

Does this resonate with you? Are you prepared to share any instances where you might have been mismatched and your account of that experience?