Skip to main content

Banking baloney

Branches like this may be doomed
(image from Wikipedia)
As Bohr almost said, forecasting is difficult, especially about the future - in fact it's pretty well always wrong. And never more so when we try to predict cataclysmic change. As I discussed in Dice World, the problem is that the systems we are usually trying to predict are so large and complex (and often mathematically chaotic) that we are almost always blindsided by major changes. So I raised an eyebrow when I saw an article claiming that within a decade, retail banks will be dead.

It's certainly true, as the writer suggests, that bank branches are closing because we are doing more online banking, but I think there is far too much conservatism about retail banking to see such a massive change as the end of the familiar banks in ten years. Look how long after Europe was paying its bills with direct debits the USA was still tediously printing off cheques to pay bills. Not to mention the time it took for chip and pin to be available over there.

The author of the post envisages that 'thе biggеѕt bаnkѕ in thе world in 2025 will bе technology companies'. This may be true, in the sense that they are edging into financial services through things like ApplePay - but it's extremely unlikely. And even if it is true, it doesn't mean that 'retail banks will be dead'. Nor does it mean that 'the biggest banks in your country will be technology companies', as we still have huge country-to-country variation in retail banks. You don't see many Lloyds and NatWest branches outside the UK, for instance.

Although bankers aren't trusted, we still invest significant trust in familiar high street banking brands, plus brands like Virgin and the supermarkets which have a similar feeling of national acceptance. We are far less likely to trust Google or Apple with our money. Handling payment transactions is one thing. Handling our bank accounts, particularly current accounts and mortgages, is another.

I am not saying we won't see a gradual shift away from today's retail banks to a wider range of options. But I think the reports of retail banking's (future) death are greatly exaggerated.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense