View more on these topics

Phil Young: Where have the advantages of technology gone?

Phil-Young-700x450.jpgIt could be said the benefits of efficiency have been pocketed by financial services executives, instead of being passed to consumers

It is hard not to be disappointed by technology in financial services. Surrounded by gadgets and gizmos which amuse and distract us to the point of madness, workplace technology will always seem pedestrian.

The complaints I hear from advisers rarely change: overpromised, overpriced and underdelivered are the three most commonly used adjectives. Is this fair or are expectations set too high? And what are the implications for investors?

The financial services industry has a poor track record as far as consumer costs are concerned. Philippon’s study of the US finance industry from 1870 to 2010 showed the total cost of financial intermediation increased over this time, especially in the last 40 years from 1970 to 2010.

This is despite all the advances – especially in technology – that occurred in these decades. To quote Philippon: “The finance industry that sustained the expansion of railroads, steel and chemical industries, and the electricity and automobile revolutions was more efficient than the current finance industry.”

Phil Young: Change the record on pension saving lectures

Philippon’s definition of financial intermediation is a tight one. It does not include advice, drawing more from banking and corporate finance activity, but it is easy to apply consistently over such a long time period. It is also based on US data.

However, in 2013, Bazot recreated similar results in Europe from 1950 to 2007, during which time the cost of intermediation rose from 1.3 per cent of assets to 1.8 per cent in the UK, and increased or remained static in most other European countries.

Where have the advantages of technology gone? The simple answer is that it has mostly been used to create secondary markets for trading. Is this a good thing? Possibly. Certainly, the unit costs of trading have come down over the years.

However, Philippon highlights two things you would expect to see if increased costs from technological developments had improved the financial system. Firstly, greater information on stock prices should be more predictive of future income streams, leading to better capital allocation.

Secondly, better risk sharing and risk management. He finds no evidence for either, highlighting the fact aggregate trading costs now are three times higher than any time in history while individual trading costs have decreased.

 Not guilty

The financial services industry may be culpable but not guilty. There are other issues which should be picked out, aside from the inevitable methodological limitations of the research.

Firstly, the speed of modern information exchange has removed the clear information advantages many relied on in previous decades. Now, use of inside information is a market abuse with criminal sanctions of up to seven years imprisonment. Not so long ago, the very reason you paid a broker was because they would have some inside information. Finding an advantage to exploit which nobody else knows about is tough and getting tougher.

Phil Young: The trust paradox in financial services

Secondly, interest rate hikes in the 1970s and 1980s also had an upwards effect on cost. Thirdly, as both the finance and technology sectors have become more and more competitive and lucrative, remuneration in both has shot up, and this is included in the costs quoted. In a similar way, efficient manufacturing has put more cars on the road, caused congestion and slowed average speeds in many cities. Their actions have caused the regression, although I am not sure they are to blame.

Pocketing the benefits

These studies are broad and do not focus specifically on the costs associated with advice, although Philippon has also drawn conclusions and commented on the costs of active fund management in the US.

His work has been used by critics of the current system to show the benefits of efficiency have been pocketed by financial services workers and executives.

In the mid-20th century, US finance workers were paid about the same as those in other sectors with similar levels of education but, by the end of the century, it was 50 per cent higher than elsewhere, while executives took home two and a half times what their counterparts earned in other sectors.

Malcolm Kerr: The keys to high standards

This is a compelling but simplistic view. Financial intermediation has become more complex, more competitive and more demanding of mathematical skill.

With all the talk of fintech and global technology giants entering financial services (which we have been hearing for years), it is worth remembering these lessons in among the workshops on client journeys and experiences.

The cost of intermediation did come down a little in the mid noughties, although only to the same level as the mid-1880s. When you look at the newly disclosed transaction costs for some funds, and the anticipated re-platforming costs of some platforms, you have to return to Philippon’s quote: “The finance industry that sustained the expansion of railroads, steel and chemical industries, and the electricity and automobile revolutions was more efficient than the current finance industry.”

All this cost is a drag on the real economy. Are we really in the midst of the fourth industrial revolution?

Phil Young is managing director of Zero Support



Aviva and tech provider take joint responsibility for platform errors

Aviva is telling platform users that third party technology provider FNZ is jointly responsible for fixing errors experienced because of its replatforming project in January. Aviva moved assets on its platform from Bravura technology to FNZ six months ago but the project has been beset with issues, including advisers and clients not receiving payments, trades […]


FCA highlights concerns over Priips cost disclosure

The FCA has found some firms are not properly disclosing costs to investors as required under new Priips rules. The FCA today published a call for input on the new Priips rules asking for feedback on the scope of the legislation and the contents of the Key Information Documents required. The call for input says: […]

Equity release a growing market for solicitors – Pru

Research from Prudential conducted among UK private client solicitors shows a growing need for advisory work in equity release. Twenty nine per cent of solicitors believe demand for legal guidance in the area of equity release will increase in the next five years and over the last two years, one in four (26 per cent) […]


Stumped by social media?

By Scott Mill, Digital Marketing Consultant In an age of seemingly endless distractions, getting the attention of your audience can seem daunting. The challenges faced are already being addressed by other industries and it occurred to me that we could learn a few things from the game of cricket. Play the short game Test cricket […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There is one comment at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Pauline Forbes 30th July 2018 at 6:34 pm

    In this type of debate, I am reminded of the phrase ‘how many people does it take to change a lightbulb’, the humour being the number of people not doing the job itself that were involved (and paid).

    Like the industrial, a technological revolution in all sectors might have been expected to increase efficiency, and reduce end user costs, mainly however at the expense of jobs thus reducing revenue to the government and potentially creating mass unemployment.

    A report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 1998 that looked into this concluded that ‘rather than producing mass unemployment, technological change will make its maximum contribution to higher living standards, wages, and employment levels if appropriate public and private policies are adopted to support the adjustment to new technologies’. (National Academy of Sciences 1998, 3-5).

    And so it has come to pass. Regulation prevents unemployment by slowing innovation and change across many sectors, laws are passed to create new professions, such as Compliance in FS, increased study and educational qualifications become mandatory as does external supervision of same, redistribution of work, such as the creation in our sector of MAS and Pension Wise increases the professional headcount, and so on.

    The most difficult challenge for governments though (and one that hasn’t yet been fully accomplished) is bringing people to the point where they accept and even support that requiring multiple people to be involved in any professional task – not just my original notional example of the changing of a lightbulb, and indeed paying for their involvement, is exactly as it should be.

    The advantages of technology have not ‘disappeared’, or gone solely into the pockets of the lucky few (although some will have benefitted more than others of course), but rather have been distributed throughout the economy in the creation of many new jobs. The ‘productivity conundrum’ often spoken of by economic analysts, and increased costs borne by consumers are evidence though that at the end of the day, we may though still only be ‘changing one lightbulb’ as it were…..

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers. Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and thought leadership.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm