Speech from the Financial Services Forum Annual Dinner 2017

I was honoured to be asked to give the keynote speech at the Financial Services Forum Annual Dinner at the Guildhall in November.

My theme was innovation, disruption and trust building.

You can find the text of the speech following:

Thank you David, for your kind introduction and to the Forum for inviting me to speak here tonight.

The Financial Services Forum has always held a place in my heart since I remember joining in the early years of my career whilst at Deutsche Bank and, of course, I was humbled to win the Marketer of the Year Award in 2008.

I remember being very nervous that night and thinking that I would never win. The chat on my table was excited especially when one of the team came back from a loo break and said that they had overheard someone saying that they had voted for me! Then another person came back from a quick ciggie and she said that she too had found people who had voted for me. So my advice is if you are up for an award tonight, and want to know your chances then I’d hangout in the loo or go for a fag!

Anyone nominated for an award tonight – I wish you the very best of luck.

Tonight I earn my dinner by taking a few minutes of your time to talk about technology and financial services. Finance has been an early adopter of new technology – from the abacus to the mainframe computer and as an industry it has always been critical to our economy. We are blessed that the UK consumer is very open to trying new things. ClearScore, my company, has taken an approach to empowering people with their credit data and we have seen fast adoption, now our product is used by nearly 5.4m users in the UK and 250,000 in South Africa. We have delivered our fair share of disruption. But as I have built my career and operated in our industry I ask myself the question:

What are financial services really for?

Obviously at some level it’s about capital. Looking after money and assets, growing them, making them flow, managing risk. But I also think that at a very deep level, especially in the capitalist democracies in which we live and that are so under fire at the moment, finance is about managing and growing a very different form of capital and that’s social capital or to put it another way trust. In the delicate eco-system that is our economy and our industry, especially in the UK and Europe, trust is in danger of continuing to diminish.

This year’s Edelman Trust Barometer survey showed that still less than half of people trusted our industry. Financial services are the least trusted of all the business sectors and that is as true today as it was in 2007 before the financial crisis. You’ll be pleased to hear that in another survey from 2015 58% of people said all of us working in financial services were at best unprofessional and at worst dishonest.

The good news is it’s not just us. Almost every profession from politician, to journalist, to doctor, have seen decreases in trust over the past 20 years. The media is no longer respected, replaced with news of the royal wedding and Trump’s constant tweeting.

This collapse in trust is very significantly problematic for our economy. Every economy that has thrived has had embedded within it a complex mesh of bonds of trust that help to lower transaction costs. Whether it is the stock markets in the UK or US, or chaebol based families in South Korea, or the local SME business groups that are prevalent across Germany, all of these myriad structures help to make capital flow by creating trust between people.

Almost all change in financial services requires our system to work together at very many levels. We need to operate in an environment where the consumer, the regulator and the industry trusts each other. Now, of course, this mustn’t be blind trust but it also must assume a baseline of trustworthiness otherwise the barriers that we put up to working together, and winning the trust of the consumer, will become insurmountable.

Technology can help build both financial and social capital and it can do it fast. Look no further than Bitcoin. Just this week this new currency broke the $10,000 mark for the first time. The learnings from Bitcoin are numerous. The technology is opensource and transparent. The currency solves several major transaction issues for users in major industries. The system relies on multiple entities working together, competing to create coins but collaborating to innovate around use cases. I’m sure there will be lots of debate over your main course about the outlook for cryptocurrencies but what opensource distributed ledger technology has been able to do is build significant amounts of trust in a very short amount of time and captured increasing amounts of financial capital.

In the UK, for many reasons from Brexit to increasing inequality, I believe we are at a turning point for our economy. Historically we have enjoyed a particularly strong base of trust. From social norms, to our class structure and enduring entities from the Bank of England, to our courts, to the local pub, that have served us very well. And banking has contributed significantly to this system.

The profession of banker was always traditionally seen as solid and dependable. Banks were full of people who were part of our communities, working from buildings on every high street, who were known and were trustworthy and trusted. Products and decisions were simpler, and more transparent.

This reputation for trust across financial services didn’t happen by accident – it was hard won over centuries. We gather here today in the Guildhall at the heart of the City of London Corporation. The corporation is the oldest continuous democratic commune in the world – having existed for over 2000 years. From the Roman’s, to William the Conqueror, to the Stuart’s, the City has survived as a bulwark for the advantages of democracy and free trade, thriving through the rule of law and lots of social ties fostered through Freemen, and Councils, Courts, Halls and organisations like the Financial Services Forum, and of course, the very many bars and pubs that we enjoy to this very day.

But despite this history, our reputation has severely compromised. However, I strongly believe that we can use our collective will, our capital, our ingenuity and technology to redress the balance.

Today the Prime Minister, the Newspaper editor, the CEO are rarely very trusted. Much of the collapse in our reputation is connected with this lack of trust in authority. These authority figures have been replaced by “people like me”. Witness the power of TrustPilot or Glassdoor.

Technology can help bridge the divide between all of us and our customers. The social web, chatbots, artificial intelligence and machine learning fused with real conversations facilitated through video for example allow cost-efficient interactions with a more human feel. Experiences like Cleo which uses AI to chats to me on Facebook about my money every morning, or ClearScore’s financial education chatbots used by more than a million people – these interactions are involving, warm and funny. This can help bring back the human whilst leveraging the efficiency and convenience of a technology enabled bank in your pocket which has often removed human warmth and connection from financial services.

There is no doubt that much of our mind space whether we work for established institutions or small start-ups is dominated by the idea of disruption and disrupters. At one level this is a good thing. The regulator wants more competition, there are still very many under-served consumers, large institutions struggle with new technology, data is opening up all the time, and in many cases markets needs to be made more efficient.

But at another level disruption seem oppositional and aggressive – it creates tension – thoughts of the winners and the losers – it creates sides. And whilst we need to compete fiercely in the market for the good of the customer, dedicating ourselves to delivering better services, at lower cost, more efficiently. We also, if we are to re-establish trust in our industry and rebuild our collective reputation, need to actively support each other and collaborate more.

When I see disrupters attacking banks for over-charging on a foreign exchange transaction, or scandal after scandal from the investment banks, or the government using the regulator through PPI to redistribute money back into an ailing economy, or major financial institutions being reluctant to embrace open banking I wonder whether we are not putting short term commercial gain above longer-term maintenance of the trust that is fundamental to our success. We may win the individual battles, but lose the collective war.

What we create when we attack each other, either through our messaging or our business models, is a confused and untrusting consumer. That consumer is increasingly frustrated with the services with which they are being provided without any real understanding of why they feel this way. All they are left with is a vague sense that they are being ripped off by a system that they don’t understand and is full of bad people doing bad things.

Now whilst there are those in our industry who do the wrong things, most people I know who work for financial services companies are talented, committed people, like you and me, trying to do good things for our customers whilst operating in this sea of mistrust and confusion. Certainly the 160 people who work for ClearScore are some of the most committed and trustworthy people I have the pleasure to know – your teams will be the same.

So, we must continue to execute the obvious functions of our industry well – manage capital, be prudent with risk, help our customers make good financial decisions, create fair and balanced products. But our mission must be to work together to build back the social capital in our industry and our economy.

Tomorrow when we are back at our desks, as we think about our business and brand strategies, or develop our propositions, talk with colleagues and customers, or invent our next new innovation; whether we work for the largest of banks, or the smallest of start-ups, whether we are the disrupted or the disrupters we should take a moment to think back to this evening, to this wonderful room, and the history it represents.  We should dream big about the application of technology to solve real customer problems. But above all everyone of us should dedicate ourselves to continuing to win back the trust of our nation through hard work and our ingenuity collaborating to build a better, more trusted, more trustworthy financial services industry. To achieve this would be a true contribution of which we all can be rightly proud.

Thank you.


This article was published first in the Financial Services Forum’s Argent Magazine – Autumn 2011.

What are Banks for, if not to feather their own nests?

If we truly want to address the trust issues in financial services, I believe we need to ask some deeper, more fundamental questions about the nature of trust and what we’re here to do, individually and collectively.


The first step, especially following the turbulence of the past few years, is to recognise how complex an entity trust is – easy to feel but difficult to understand. The brand and industry trackers show trust going up, down and sideways – there’s little consistency. In reality, while we haven’t seen people pulling their money en mass from banks or more switching from one brand to another, it feels as if the standing of financial services brands is at a low point.


To understand what’s going on means recognising the distinctive layers in the concept of trust:


Functional trust underscores how well an industry or product group works to deliver a functional benefit. Here, banking actually continues to score highly and trust levels have actually increased – even more so since the government proved it would stand behind the banks. We all trust that a bank will work to deliver core commodity functions reliably.


Affective trust is where financial services companies have a real problem. Very few people have affective trust in financial services brands and virtually no-one trusts the top bankers who serve as figureheads for our industry. They’re seen as defensive and self-serving. All the TV and newspaper advertising behind the message “We’re ordinary people working for you”, doesn’t move the needle, despite what a brand tracker might say. These messages are perceived to be superficial, actually creating more mistrust and frustration with our industry.


It’s galling for a consumer to hear these advertising messages while also hearing a CEO defend massive bonus payments or threaten to leave the country when taxes are discussed. People integrate these messages. In our hyper-connected and hyper-transparent age, consumers assess brands and business on a range of competing dimensions to get very near the truth.


The trust in business, and the banking industry especially, that people used to have and that gave a legitimacy to our commercial activities has been decreasing alarmingly in the West. Business leaders are now seen as “doing the right thing” by only 20% of the population.


And there’s now clear evidence that commanding deep trust is a hard business issue, not a soft, intangible matter to be addressed through superficial communications alone.  It’s already directly impacting balance sheets and business models – just look at the cost of compensating for this lack of trust through vastly increased capital requirements or the ring-fencing of retail operations suggested by the Vickers report. All because we as an industry are seen not to be worthy of trust.


Against that background, most “normal” people are asking: What are financial services and especially our banks here to do, if it’s not just to feather their own nests? This assumption of self-serving goes to the heart of our business – and we will continue to suffer as regulators become more aggressive, spurred on by an increasingly frustrated and angry public.


However, those brands that truly commit to both social and commercial good, that contribute to social capital through their activities and that mobilise their workforce locally and authentically to take this message out – for them, these are the most exciting of trust-building times. Authentic, real, connected trust has always been at the heart of the profitable customer-financial services relationship. That’s why it receives so much attention, and why building it continues to be the right thing to do.


Read more about creating a sustainably trusted and trustworthy business and brand in Why Should Anyone Buy From YOU? (FT-Prentice Hall) by Justin Basini. It’s Available on Amazon and in all good bookshops.


I spent a morning last week judging the Financial Services Forum Awards for Marketing Effectiveness at the offices of Metro Bank‘s first branch in Holborn.

This ambitious new player is the first new high street bank to launch in the UK for over 100 years. It is the brainchild of Anthony Thomson and Vernon Hill. Anthony brings a huge amount of experience from a career spent in advertising and communications and Vernon founded and built Commerce Bank in the US growing to over 500 retail branches. They have the pedigree to really challenge the UK market.

Here are some snaps of the offices and branch. What was great is a real sense of the challenger brand going against the lazy ways of the incumbents. The branch is open, fun and the staff were even smiling. Vernon and Anthony were “on the floor” with Vernon’s little dog following around the office.

It all looks great  but I think the thing that will make the real difference are the ways that Metro Bank is being set up. There are many advantages that completely new businesses have especially in banking. From the infrastructure:  no legacy systems to integrate with, all data on systems that can be scaled and are cutting edge; to the way that customer service staff work both on phone banking and in branch interchangeably. It’s these advantages that will make the real difference in delivering a truly better customer experience that might just get people to switch.

And from what Anthony tells me new customer numbers are exceeding all their expectations – maybe the UK customer isn’t so inert when presented with something genuinely new, different and better.

If you enjoyed this post then why not consider signing up to the RSS or email feed – it’s free and easy to do.


Mail me: justin@basini.com
My website & the RE:Thinking Marketing & Brands blog:http://www.basini.com/
Follow me: www.twitter.com/justinbasini


This morning I took part in a lively debate organised by the Financial Services Forum and their newly formed Brand Strategy group chaired by the inestimable Lucian Camp.

I shared the floor with Tim Pile who is CEO of Cogent Elliott and has a long and distinguished career in marketing including being CEO of Sainsburys Bank and the insightful Mike Hoban who is now running marketing for DirectGov and has had successful stints at Scottish Widows and Barclaycard.

We were each asked by Lucian to describe the essence of brand building in either Packaged goods (Tim took this on), Services (excluding financial services – Mike took this one) and Financial Services (this was mine).

My key point was that I believe many of the principles of brand building are common irrespective of category because essentially we are dealing with human psychology but that the context of these principles within financial services does make it "special and different".

Three context differences in financial services:

1. Financial services companies are hard wired around product and P&L analysis rather than brand and customer.

This means that the power within financial services companies almost always resides within commercial product owners rather than marketing. These leaders are trained in P&L, balance sheet risk, regulatory compliance, operational effectiveness not marketing, brand, experience and customer.

The very logic of brand building, positioning for strategic competitive advantage, customer segmentation, product development based on consumer need are all more difficult concepts in a financial services organisation. The result is an industry that in general creates me-too products which are overly complex, often game the consumer, provide a poor overall experience and are communicated in complex jargon.

2. Financial services are delivered through people. And people are much harder to manage than a shampoo formulation.

Certainly in most product categories especially the FMCG companies, brands are entities created to effectively penetrate the customer mind and form associations with product performance rather than being a set of associations about a group of people doing something. In most cases in FMCG companies the brand you are marketing is not the brand you work for. Given most financial services organisations have one or only a few brand the internal service and brand alignment challenge in these brands is core and material to their success. From the Indian call centre agent to the CEO in a financial organisation each needs to understand the brand and how it applies to their job.

3. Financial services products tend to be more risky and complex than many other types of products or services. They require much more effort from the consumer and the provider.

An irony of financial services businesses is that the organisation often believes they are the most commoditised of products. I used to be told all the time at Capital One – credit cards are a “low involvement” business. Consumers take a product and then want us to disappear into the background.

But having spent lots of time obsessing about how to make white gloop in a bottle exciting to consumers, I don’t think that financial services products are or should be low involvement – they have a massive impact on people’s lives and well being.

If they low involvement its probably because they are difficult and complex to communicate and understand. This combines with the terrible mess we are in from a regulatory perspective, defaulting to complete, unedited exposure of all information, to make it extremely difficult for the consumer to make an informed and empowered decision.

And finally (as Lucian called it the "Basini bombshell") I ended up questioning one of the core purposes of brand building:

4. Financial services brands – it's not about being different but about making a difference

The strategic goal of marketing in many businesses is to create a differentiated position in the market that gives you competitive advantage through cheaper cost of sales or price premium for example. Of the many principles that we could consider this is perhaps one of the most fundamental.

Actually I’m not sure this has been proven effective for the main stream brands in financial services. If we look at our banks for example. A highly consolidated and inert market with very little to split apart the businesses products, performance or promise.  Certainly not enough to encourage mass switching to occur except maybe in those more liquid and more easily gamed products like credit cards.

In highly competitive and easily switched categories there is definite advantage to creating new ideas that better match and deliver against the consumer’s myriad needs. But the difference in financial services given their complex, impactful and long term nature is that aim shouldn’t be to create the new, new thing to gain share at the expense of customer loyalty but to focus on superior product reliability and partnership as a route to extracting competitive advantage and value. This is how our organisations and products can make a difference.

As marketers, we may not be in the right job to get to the CEO spot, we might be wired a little differently from the mainstream in our organisations but given our products are difficult and risky, and are built through human relationships and service, we have myriad opportunities to build great brands which have lasting value for our organisations and customers.

Lucian's blog on the session can be read here. 

Here is my presentation as a slidecast:


Thanks for reading. As always please share and comment if you've got a view.


Mail me: justin@basini.com
My website & Blog: http://www.basini.com/
Follow me: www.twitter.com/justinbasini

Did you know you can sign up for updates from Justin Basini? Click here


I’ve been thinking about Trust again as I pick up my book writing after a summer break.

I want to return to a theme that I discussed in a speech that I made to the Financial Services Forum conference earlier this year. You can download the text of the speech from my website. If you read my earlier blog on Banking and Common Good there are some key themes that emerge if banking is to regain our trust as consumers. As I outlined in that blog I believe we are a turning point but there is significant regression to the mean and that the old status quo is most likely to return. I read with interest in the weekend’s FT about the prediction of a bumper bonus season for the investment bankers.

As “masters of the markets” financial services can contribute market based solutions to the biggest problems. The issues facing us today as a globalised society are bewildering: climate change, peak oil, water crisis, natural resource depletion, all underwritten by uneven wealth distribution, poverty, crime, conflict,increasing urbanisation. These issues are moving more quickly and in a more interrelated way than ever before. The European Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme and the futures markets for protection of Amazon land, are all examples of financial markets contributing solutions.

Contribute proactively to a move away from an age of naked consumerism to something that priortises inidividual well-being and community cohesion. Imagine a world where a conversation in the bank, with a bank manager, could assess whether a credit card to fund that new purchase, or a stretching mortgage to buy that bigger house, were needed putting individual happiness at the heart of the discussion.

After all is said and done what we trust are organisations that have values communicated through their actions, run by accessible and open people, businesses that value their loyalty, and seek to create profit by creating products which meet consumer needs transparently. We will trust brands that communicate openly and positively about the many benefits they provide. Brands can move from basic levels of trust when their businesses start to play for higher goals.

What do you think? As always please feel free to share, retweet, comment and get involved.




Did you know you can sign up for updates from Justin Basini? Click here.

The Big Trust Debate – “This house thinks that restoring trust between consumers and financial services providers is a lost cause.”

Financial Services Forum Members Conference: 25th March 2009

This speech sent me on a journey to ultimately writing my book about brands, business, trust and social capital. 

Why Should Anyone Buy From You? Trust in business and brands


The Big Trust Debate: Opposing the motion

"This house thinks that restoring trust between consumers and financial services providers is a lost cause.”

Thank you to the team at The Financial Services Forum for organising this debate, and for the privilege of opposing this motion. I’d also like to thank Ian for his spirited, if misguided, defence.


So trust – what exactly is it? Do you trust me to make this speech? Do I trust you to look after my money or investments? As an industry what is our reputation, as trustworthy, reliable bankers or evil, scheming, wankers?
I believe resolutely that we must reject the motion that “restoring trust between consumers and financial services providers is a lost cause.”
I’d like to explain why I believe this motion is flawed from two perspectives: the conceptual – that trust is so important to our economy that we cannot let it go; and from a very practical perspective that there is much we can do to improve trust in our industry and so it is far from being a lost cause.
Defining trust is a complex issue. It is hard to measure. I don’t agree with defaulting to the overly simplistic, dictionary definition that Ian used in his opening remarks. Adam Smith knew that trust was a key economic currency; it wasn’t luck that The Theory of Moral Sentiments, in which trust is writ large, enabled the Wealth of Nations
There are many models of trust: some behavioural, some transactional, some genetic. But what I believe is that we need a practical and pragmatic view of trust that we can apply to our industry and businesses – a model that can help us drive positive solution- oriented action at the tactical and strategic level.
I’d like to define three words today: Trust, Trustworthiness and Reputation.
Firstly Trust.Trust depends on the existence of risk – if something was certain there would be no need to trust. Trust depends on interdependence between actors – if there is no dependence there is no need to trust.
Therefore I would like to define trust as a relationship.
I trust someone in relation to a specific action or situation. For example, I may trust Ian to conceive a terrific advertising campaign for me, but if my heart fails I do not trust him to perform heart surgery on me.
Secondly, Trustworthiness which I will define as: The intrinsic absolute value of how someone will act in given specific action or situation.
Each of us have different absolute levels of trustworthiness intrinsic to our being and the situation we find ourselves in. Finding a £20 note on a bus, for example, some of us might pocket the money, others might hand it in. Therefore as trustworthiness as an absolute, intrinsic quality, it is separate from the perception for trustworthiness which is an aspect of reputation.
I am sure we all remember the recent problems that the House of Lords has undergone with certain members being accused of taking inducements. Previously, the Lords has a reputation for trustworhiness that has been shaken. But importantly their intrinsic trustworthiness, be it high or low, has not changed, we have just readjusted our perceptions in the light of new information.
These three concepts inter-relate to guide the decisions that we make as people to place our trust within others.


So keeping these definitions in mind let’s take a step back and look at the role of trust in our economy, business and brands.
Adam Smith believed that certain virtues, such as trust and a concern for fairness, were vital for the functioning of a market economy. The very basis for enlightened self-interest, through division of labour and the specialisation, and ultimately the professionalisation of tasks, is built upon our ability as human beings to trust and be trusted.
Before the rise of the free-market we would have grown the grain, then ground the grain and then baked the bread for ourselves relying on our own ingenuity and skills. But now we trust in the farmer, the miller, the baker, and with industrialisation, across national and global markets, we trust evermore in concepts, often called brands, because these professionals are strangers to us. What allows this system to work is our ability to trust not blindly but intelligently not just in those performers but also the system that monitors their trustworthiness, and ultimately allows them to build a reputation for good or ill.
This trust is good. It facilitates free-trade, lowers transaction costs, and creates employment. It feels good – inspiring loyalty and building morale. It is built most powerfully through personal interaction and familiarity. And is it fragile and asymmetrical taking a long time to build but can be broken by one quick act.
Professor Christine Ennew, from the University of Nottingham has shown through the work of the Financial Services research forum, that trust is alive and well in the way customers think. And given our economic model this is surely unsurprising. In the Trust Index survey many institutions were well trusted with a mean score of 72%. Banks and other financial services providers were amongst the most trusted institutions, scoring more highly than the NHS who scored 55% and the BBC who scored 58%.



Now to us working in the industry this might seen counter-intuitive but should it be? Well, I think most of our customers trust us to do the basic, commodity functions of our businesses well. The ATMs work, statements mostly arrive on time, salaries get paid in, bills get paid, savings are safe; when you crash your car the insurance nearly always pays up; when you get a small piece of plastic out of your wallet to pay it almost always works perfectly.

Unfortunately however given the recent issues in the global financial market cracks have appeared at even these most basic levels of trust. Witness the run on Northern Rock and those customers queuing didn’t even have this very basic level of trust. In the actions that the government took with Northern Rock and more recently, RBS and Lloyds TSB, trust in the system has had to replace trust in our individual businesses.
However even if you believe that we are still trusted at some basic level this feels inadequate. These feelings, I believe, come from our need to be respected, perhaps, a craving for deference long past, we want our customers to see us as trustworthy.
But the average UK consumer, doesn’t think we are trustworthy. For many, if not most consumers, financial services providers are seen as a “necessary evil”. How many times have we heard in focus groups – “better not to move because better the devil you know.” The average consumer thinks that if the average banker can have one over on him, he will.
Is our poor reputation for trustworthiness deserved? Is Fred the Shred the exception, and actually our industry is just a story of hard- working, decent, ordinary folk?
At a surface level, especially for those of us that are marketers or responsible for communications, we have a lot to answer for. We spend much of our advertising budgets either pillorying each other or trivialising. My recent campaigns at Capital One have been about parodying the uncaring “bank manager”; Nationwide’s advertising has more famously featured the stupid and dishonest bank manager leading the consumer to the conclusion that trusting a bank would be madness. We see the flim-flam of a Barclaycard Waterslide or Halifax pushing a shallow inducement to switch bank accounts for no other reason than a £5 a month cashback.
But are the issues that undermine trust more than surface communications? We need to ask the toughest question: is our poor reputation for trustworthiness actually a reflection of the truth. The consumer sees:
Personal pensions mis-selling, endowment mortgages that don’t cover original principles, Equitable life, PPI fines, split capital investments,
125% mortgages, call centres moving off shore, exposes on pressure selling in bank branches, Sir Fred Goodwin taking his pension, Lloyds TSB paying out bonuses. The list goes on and on.
Bad practise cannot hide, and will be magnified by an unbalanced media. Transparency and access are the largest consequences of our information rich age. The internet and modern communications has delivered a level of transparency, speed of information flow, and access never before encountered by our businesses. Our customers have many more ways to interact with us, find out about what we are doing and share this information. We have taken the cost-savings, that
the information age has offered: internet and telephone banking, has replaced the bank manager, application forms for credit signed in front of representative of the lending institution have been replaced by “one minute response” internet advertisements and web forms. All of this has depersonalised banking and broken many of the human relationships between our businesses and our customers.
The frightening, or is it liberating, thought is that maybe the much discussed “collapse of trust” in our society, is actually a re-calibration to a more accurate view. If our politicians, our churches, or ourselves aren’t worthy of trust then why should we expect it to receive it. The age of blind faith has been destroyed by the information age.
Sadly however the result of this transparency, information flow, together with an unbalanced media, often leave the consumer in the worst of all possible worlds, confused, unhappy and dissatisfied but still dependent.


In order to restore trust we need to re-examine the way that we run our businesses. The complex basis upon which we have generated profits, built on capital markets and financial engineering, will I suspect be less favoured going forward. What I hope can replace it is a return to the fundamentals. Understand your customers needs and wants, build a business model that makes you money when the customer uses the product to fulfil that need, communicate in a compelling way and deliver on what you say you will deliver. This is the basic formula for trust in any market. If we do it the consumer will trust us more.
We need to look as an industry at a commonsense regulatory framework which is easier for the consumer to understand. For example going back to a separation between consumer finance and investment banking would make sense to the consumer in a world where they don’t want bankers “gambling with my money”. This will help restore trust.
I hope that we can work with our regulatory bodies, our customers, perhaps even the media, to forge a new concept of communication that leverages and manages the information rich age we now live in. We should put the consumer back into a relationship where they feel more comfortable and happier with the products and services they use, understanding of both their opportunities and limitations, empowering them to make good decisions for themselves in an open and transparent market. Whatever you think of Martin Lewis and his Moneysavingexpert.com, he has proved that with compelling content targeted at a key need – saving money -engagement in understanding financial products can move into the mainstream, according to his website his weekly email covers nearly 1.5m people.
I think we also are seeing more positive changes that will help to rebuild trust. For example the trend in call centres moving offshore has become more balanced with many more of us choosing to repatriate or invest in new UK facilities such as Abbey, Esure and HSBC.
Or changes in the way that we communicate, there are many more attempts, irrespective of whether you think they are good or bad, to present positive benefits, such as the recent Natwest Employee based campaign or the Co-operative talking overtly about their values.
Some have said that actually we should ensure that financial services providers are not trusted so that it will keep us on our toes. But actually I think this drives a negative “gaming” approach to making a profit where the consumer feels like they need to game the system and we are forced to create business models where loyal customers pay for those that game. This is well exemplified by the Balance transfer market where customers who stick around effectively have to pay in higher interest rates to pay for those that switch constantly.
The trust rejectors say reduce everything down to price, then leverage the comparison tables on, for example, Moneysupermarket. Here lies the path to fully commoditised financial services with little or no ability for us to generate a fair return for servicing customers well and
earning their trust and loyalty.
An alternative might be to work together as an industry together with government and the FSA to build an approach that can step change the level of customer empowerment. Moving to a more open and transparent dialogue; investing as an industry to support an educated, empowered consumer. Starting to build back in a face-to-face relationship with our customers that allows trust in us as individuals within an enterprise, rather than just the faceless brand.
And for those brands that succeed in restoring trust, perhaps winning some respect and a reputation for trustworthiness, a more open and transparent market will deliver increased preference and ultimately greater demand.
Attempting to address these big issues as an industry in concert with others will help to restore trust and clearly indicate that it is not a lost cause but rather a source of profitability for the coming years and decades.
So in conclusion I believe that I have outlined to you why I believe that restoring trust is fundamental to the strength of our industry; and given concerted and co-ordinated action, whilst not denying that it will be difficult, it is certainly not a lost cause. Therefore I would strongly urge you to reject the motion before us here today.
Thank you

Closing speech: 5 minutes (3 minutes written, 2 min for specific rebuttals)

I am struck as I have listened to today’s proceedings by the genuine sense that we are at a turning point in the development of our economy and our industry. It is undeniable that trust is an important source of support to our free-market economy. When trust goes out of the window, as has happened over the past couple of years, the system comes under threat of collapse.
However we must recognise that today we live in a flatter society. The age of deference has gone. Whether we like it or not, transparency and the view of the man on the street is more important than ever. We are seeing a democratisation of everything from information, to tools, to access; and this includes financial services.
And so in the confusing and changing world how do we respond? In my opening speech I hoped to give you a sense of some of the, perhaps difficult, but commonsense, moves that we could make to restore trust and therefore conclude it is not a lost cause.
But over and above these steps I think we need to reframe the challenge from the fatalistic and somewhat lazy – “is restoring trust a lost cause?” into one that puts restoring trust as an imperative to a new conception of the role of financial services providers in our society.
Through the crisis we are currently experiencing we have an opportunity to recast the financial services industry as a creator of social good, not just through tax contributions, and profit to pension funds, but directly through our innovation.
The issues facing us today as a globalised society are bewildering: climate change, peak oil, water crisis, natural resource depletion, all underwritten by uneven wealth distribution, poverty, crime, conflict, increasing urbanisation. These issues are moving more quickly and in a more interrelated way than ever before – it is often frightening.
We have the opportunity to move away from an age of naked consumerism to something more balanced and sustainable perhaps putting individual happiness first.
Imagine a world where a conversation in the bank, with a bank manager, could actually assess whether a credit card to fund that new purchase, or a stretching mortgage to buy that bigger house, were actually discussed in a holistic context putting individual happiness at the heart of the discussion.
On the strategic level how do we use the unbelievable talent of our financial innovators to contribute to the solution of world problems whilst also turning a profit. The European Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme and the futures markets for protection of Amazon land, are all examples of financial markets contributing solutions.
Old and new models that are more sustainable and built on trust are being actively explored. Alastair Darling has signalled in favour of mutual societies and credit unions. Grameen Bank, banking for the poor, has built a healthy business in Bangladesh, built on trust, accountability and creativity.  Zopa, the internet marketplace for loans from individual to individual, has created a growing business built on a new model, bypassing the banks, which sees lower charge offs for a given risk because of the accountability and trust they have built in their system.
And whilst this broader call to arms might seem ambitious and demand too much change, we have no choice but to change, for the model we have run over the past 25 years has delivered crisis and collapse. The choice is what to change into.
After all is said and done what our customers will trust are organisations that have values communicated through their actions, run by accessible and open people, businesses that value their loyalty, and seek to create profit by creating products which meet their needs transparently. They will trust brands that communicate openly and positively about the many benefits we provide. They will move from basic levels of trust when our businesses start to play for higher goals.
Far from being a lost cause, we have the exciting opportunity to respond to this crisis by putting trust at the heart of our actions in the coming years, both tactical and strategic, balancing both the practical and the pragmatic with new concepts.
The first step in what will be a long journey is voting against this motion before us here today.
Thank you.