Bank bashing is serving its end!

It is a pleasant change to have my beliefs and ideas vindicated! As my one loyal reader will know I have been hammering away for years about the culture fostered by bank management that serves shareholders before their customers.

I have always maintained that profits should be the result of “service” and not the other way around. It seems that some banks are waking up to this fact. For instance the CEO of Citigroup, Vikram Pandit, was recently reported to have said that, "Banks have to start serving clients and really serve them, rather than serving themselves." At last some good sense and vindicates what I have been saying for years!

This “novel” concept has received support from a very surprising source, Elizabeth Murdoch (daughter of Rupert of recent newspaper notoriety) has recently said “Profit must be our servant, not our master," adding that colleagues needed to accept that they had a responsibility to each other and not just the bottom line.She also said that "It's increasingly apparent that the absence of purpose - or of a moral language - within government, media or business, could become one of the most dangerous own goals for capitalism and for freedom”.

Wow! Well done Elizabeth. I could not have expressed it better myself!

When all is said and done how many banks actually know what providing a “service” really means? Using my old standby the Oxford English Dictionary “service” in this context – is defined as, inter alia, “An act of helping or benefiting another; an instance of beneficial, useful or friendly action; the action of serving, helping or benefiting another; behaviour conducive to the welfare or advantage of another.”

In the context of a bank I believe that a bank should look to helping and benefiting customers - and I do NOT mean shareholders. By customers I mean people like me – a depositor, someone with a mortgage or a loan. I do not believe that any bank actually understands the need for or promotes a culture of “service” (certainly not in Australia at any rate).  

A “customer” is locked into whatever they have signed up to, regardless of changed circumstances. The bank  is not interested in anything but the money – the “bottom line” – and the customer can go hang. This may be legally “correct” and according to the letter of the law but is it according to the “spirit” of the law? Is such a legalistic approach providing a “service” to the customer? It may “serve” the bank and please the shareholders but does it engender good will with customers? Does it engender a feeling of trust with customers? Does it promote the welfare of customers? Does such an approach actually help customers?

Of course not! Banks have a lot to learn. This is why I continue to bash banks.