Commentary

We proposed that Barclays should be split into two separate banks - one focused on retail banking and the other on investment banking - in our 5 July Commentary. That presumed, of course, that the investment bank would be viable and able to fund itself on a stand-alone basis in today's challenging markets.

The global banking industry is pretty much at an all time low in terms of reputation. Nowhere is this so true as in the UK, where it might have been thought that public opinion of the banks could hardly have sunk any lower in the aftermath of the financial crisis that has enveloped the global economy since 2008. But in the past few weeks a processing malfunction at RBS seriously affected millions of customer accounts, while the Libor rate-fixing scandal that has claimed the jobs of Barclays Chairman, Marcus Agius and Chief Executive, Bob Diamond.

Supervision of Spain’s troubled banking system has now passed largely into the hands of inspectors drawn from the European Commission, the IMF, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Banking Authority (EBA). This follows agreement by the European authorities to provide Spanish banks directly with up to €100bn of new capital via the EFSF bailout fund.

Many banks across the Asia Pacific (APAC) geography are implementing Core Banking products. These banks expect that a modern Core Banking product would give them a competitive edge, the ability to launch new products faster, lower operational costs and improve customer service. Unlike Europe or America, which are large with fairly standard banking offerings, the APAC geography is actually characterized by much more variety in its range of offerings.

The shift in the wealth management landscape from a client and regulatory perspective have significant technology implications for Asian Wealth Managers. There are three key areas in Wealth Technology that is taking centre-stage; namely, an increasing focus on client-centricity, using compliance as a competitive advantage, and a relentless focus on lowering the cost to serve through platform change.

Over the past couple of months, Europe has been at a crossroads. Ever since the fears among investors intensified in late 2010 regarding the financial stability of the southern European member countries, first and foremost Greece, European political leaders have implemented and applied a vast amount of tools to fend off the looming debt crisis. The current goal among Europe’s political elite is to prevent the debt crisis from spreading to bigger and too-big-too-bail-out economies in central and northern Europe and thereby to keep the Eurozone from breaking apart. These developments are closely watched by Europe’s economic partners, especially the US and Asia. Focusing on Asia in particular, the big question for Asian politicians, economists and market participants is now: how has or will the sovereign debt crisis in Europe affect Asia? Although the answer is everything but trivial, it is generally believed that Asia will most likely be affected in two ways: trade and finance.

The year 2012 has not been good for the Asian banking industry. Credit growth is falling in most Asian countries. For instance, new lending by the four biggest Chinese state-owned banks was flat in April and May 2012. There are multiple reasons for this. The primary reason is the slowdown of real GDP growth in most Asian countries. Newly released macro data predict a slump in the economy in those countries. Due to the expectation of a weak economy, the demand for new credit is not as strong as in previous years. Weak exports to the Eurozone and the U.S. will likely cause damage to the manufacturing industry in export-oriented Asian countries and reduce their demand for bank loans. The slowdown in real GDP growth and trade growth predicts a likely surge in non-performing loans in the Asian banking industry.

Barclays’ troubles and Bob Diamond’s resignation have not come as a surprise to experienced London bank-watchers. They have been brewing for years and came to a head last week when the LIBOR-fixing scandal broke. It was very clear which bank Sir Mervyn King had at the front of his mind when he called for leadership of an unusually high order and changes to the structure of the industry. He then went on to blast the banks for ‘excessive levels of compensation, shoddy treatment of customers, deceitful manipulation of one of the most important interest rates and… yet another mis-selling scandal’.

We’ve heard a number of announcements lately about new mobile near-field communication (NFC) devices.

Customer service in banking is one of the most important ways to keep customers coming back. It includes responding to customers’ questions and complaints in a thorough and timely manner.

How many of you can identify with the organisational environment described below?

Leadership, a clear and consistent message, and employee involvement are the keys to productivity in the workplace.

With credit card profitability under continued intense pressure, surely launching new rewards programmes is ground that only ‘fools would dare to tread’?

The recent controversy in the United Kingdom concerning the comedian Jimmy Carr’s offshore tax avoidance scheme has again raised the thorny issue of what is acceptable to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) where tax planning is concerned.

Cost-cutting at banking and financial institutions around the world is impacting confidence of employees in the industry locally, with employees ranking the financial health of a company as the most important factor when looking for a new workplace.

Employees are seeking it and employers are supplying it: mobility. Moving people internally is an increasingly important way for firms to reduce recruitment costs, plug urgent skills gaps, boost retention rates, and take on low-risk talent with proven track records. And in the current stagnant external job market, it is providing staff with career progression opportunities they wouldn’t otherwise enjoy. This renewed emphasis on mobility was a critical topic for the 15 senior HR professionals from leading financial institutions who attended a recent roundtable discussion in Singapore organised by my company. A representative of a big four accounting firm, for example, said he has seen “huge demand” for in-house transfers in the last few months, especially from auditors wanting to work in another department and from employees outside of Asia looking for roles in the region. Mobility is a must Recent redundancies, cuts to hiring budgets and longer recruitment approval times have made many organisations revise the way they promote and run their mobility programmes this year. This is especially true for critical replacement roles. Managers would rather hire quickly from within their own ranks – even if the in-house candidate isn’t a perfect match for the job – rather than be slowed down by having to justify the high cost of going external. Mandatory two-week periods in which new vacancies are announced to the workforce before they are advertised externally are common place. Mobility, either internationally or to another department, is also an important retention tool. One roundtable attendee said this was especially true for back-office staff who tended to get “bored with their jobs” and wanted new challenges after about two years. “We are focussing on operations right now, then we will move into IT and other areas; it’s as step-by-step process.” Education and promotion The challenge for HR in instigating a company-wide mobility plan is educating managers that losing a good employee to another team or country office is in the best long-term interests of the business. Moreover, as a roundtable delegate remarked: “It’s critical to tell employees about what mobility really is. It’s not an easy option to escape your boss, or for a boss to shift a ‘problem’ person over to someone else.” To help ensure that only the best talent is eligible for transfers, one major international bank limits eligibility to the top 25 per cent of performers and insists on at least a year’s tenure. Encouraging internal mobility is more than just reactively marketing roles to staff as they arise. HR should have programmes in place to identify individuals who are willing to move. Two attendees mentioned that people at their banks were able to express an initial interest to HR without telling their line manager. One firm runs an online network in which staff can update their profiles, allowing in-house recruiters to search those who state they are mobile. Another incorporates a mobility discussion into annual development reviews. A representative from a European bank told the roundtable that his firm recently held an internal career fair, with booths promoting jobs in various departments. “It’s the first time we’ve been able to do this openly, this has helped changed people’s mindsets in favour of more open discussions about mobility.” Implemented with care and thought through in advance – with buy-in from HR, line managers and staff – internal mobility can offer timely solutions to some of the hiring needs faced by financial institutions in the current cost-conscious market. Moreover, with fewer external vacancies available than a year ago and a general candidate reluctance to change companies, many employees are willing to advance their careers via an in-house move. George McFerran, Managing Director, eFinancialCareers Asia-Pacific