1. Newsroom
  2. Applying nudge theory to private banking
Menu
UBP in the press 23.10.2017

Applying nudge theory to private banking

Applying nudge theory to private banking

Le Temps (23.10.2017) - The great wave of regulation following the 2008 crisis has been driven by the laudable aim of increasing transparency and client protection. However, it has also encouraged behaviour that favours passive investment at the expense of absolute returns.


Applying nudge theory to private banking, or how to combat the trend towards uniformity

The 2017 Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences has been awarded to Richard Thaler, one of the founding fathers of behavioural economics. As a result, nudge theory, as popularised in 2008 by his hugely successful book “Nudge”, is back in the headlines. Co-written with Cass Sunstein, that book gives examples of how people’s propensity to take irrational decisions – caused by their cognitive biases – can be overcome by “nudges”.

Nudges involve using those biases to put people in situations involving choices, in such a way that they will be encouraged to behave predictably or take “good” decisions. Thaler and Sunstein also wrote about “libertarian paternalism”: paternalism because people need benign support when making choices, and libertarian because no option must be excluded in order to maintain their freedom of choice.

Perverse effects

The doctrine can be applied in many different fields such as healthcare, the environment and savings. In the latter area, given the inability of Americans to start saving for their retirement early enough in their career, Thaler and Sunstein suggested to the authorities and companies that employees should be enrolled by default in their retirement savings plans, while giving those not wishing to save the chance to opt out. Since such opt-outs are rare, companies are seeing a surge in employee savings.

Nudges are easy to implement, effective and cheap. However, they also take responsibility away from individuals in some sense and create standardisation, and so can also have perverse effects.

As regards the supply of financial products and savings management services, the wave of regulation following the 2008 crisis has – with the aim of increasing transparency and investor protection – encouraged the development of standardised and, indirectly, index-based asset management.

“When the wise man points at the sky…”

In an attempt to diversify risk in order to manage it more effectively, and to increase clarity, the product range has become more index-based, at the expense of active management. By focusing only on relative benchmarks, the finance industry has lost sight of one of the main reasons to invest: to help people grow their savings, i.e. to achieve positive absolute returns. In other words, to make money.

“What wealth management needs is an incentive to create tailored solutions – instead regulations are pushing it towards standardisation.”

As Dominique Fière, asset manager at Amiral Gestion, recently said, “unfortunately, when the wise man points at the sky, the fool looks at the finger. The whole focus is on the index, and the rational aim of making money has been replaced by that of achieving a return similar to that of the index. There has been a shift from a system of absolute value – making or losing money – to a relative system, i.e. doing better or worse than the index, regardless of whether it is rising or falling.”

In some ways, the purpose of recent legislation – which will be bolstered by MIFID 2 in Europe and LSFin in Switzerland – is entirely commendable: allowing clients to choose the most rational investments in a fully transparent way. However, the result is increasing standardisation, with people being pushed to invest in the same products at the same time. We are seeing a concentration in volumes as heavyweight asset managers buy the same stocks without considering their intrinsic value, simply because they are part of an index tracked by their ETFs and other index-based products.

Automated choices

For the markets, this produces self-sustaining movements and lower volatility. For clients, the only way their objectives seem to be taken into account is by filling in a mandatory form, and investment choices are increasingly automated.

This tallies with certain banks’ enthusiasm for digital solutions, including “robo-advisors”, which are just another way of standardising choice while claiming to offer a more rational, low-cost way of investing. There is also increasing interest in risk premia investing: this is a sophisticated offshoot of index-based management that aims to standardise the way portfolios generate alpha by creating indexes that accurately reflect the various risk premia. When all the components of these new indexes have converged, herd effects and overvaluation will be rife.

It is worth asking the question: can the high-end private banking industry adopt standardised investing, or even robo-investing which, although complying with regulations, would involve no in-depth understanding of clients’ ever-changing needs? Absolutely not.

Breaking with the trend towards uniformity requires considerable effort. Private banks must continue to deliver individual solutions, and not risk destroying the value added that they have traditionally championed. The industry must remain focused on assessing clients’ needs, their financial expertise and their tax situation. It must understand clients’ ability to assess risk and their investment horizon, even though they may change often in line with financial developments. Digital tools must be used as a way of delivering a more customised service, not as a way of implementing standard solutions. Nudge theory is based on preserving choice: we must safeguard that freedom, rejecting solutions that, while claiming to protect savers, limit the possibilities available to them. That choice is vital both to the interests of our clients, and to the profitability of private banks.

More about our Investment Expertise

MichelLonghini.jpg
Michel Longhini
CEO Private Banking

 

Small and mid caps

A fertile hunting ground for active managers

Learn more about our expertise on small and mid caps

Watch the video

Most read

Market insight 23.02.2018

Euro area inflation confirmed the preliminary estimate, German Q4 GDP was in line

Eurozone: CPI (Jan F): 1.3% m/m as expected (prior: 1.3%)

  • On a m/m basis: -0.9% as expected (prior: 0.4%)
  • CPI core y/y: 1% as expected (prior: 1%)
  • Services inflation, which provides the best read in the initial report on domestically generated price increases, was unchanged from the initial report as well as from the December reading of 1.2%.

 

Germany: GDP (Q4 F): 0.6% q/q as expected (prior: 0.6%)

  • On a y/y basis: 2.3% as expected (prior: 2.3%)
  • Growth momentum in Q4 was mainly supported by foreign trade. Exports grew substantially by 2.7% q/q, while imports were also up by 2% q/q.
  • In terms of the domestic components, public consumption remained resilient in H2 17, Q3 growth has been revised up to 0.5% q/q (+0.5 ppt), in line with Q4 17 print (0.5% q/q).
  • On the investment side, gross fixed capital investment remained flat, with construction declining slightly.

 

Poland: Unemployment rate (Jan): 6.9% as expected (prior: 6.6%)

Market insight 22.02.2018

Business confidence slightly lower in France and Germany

US: Initial jobless claims (Feb. 17): 222k vs 230k expected (prior: 229k revised from 230k)

  • Initial jobless claims continue to flirt with multi-decade lows.

 

Germany: IFO (Feb.): 115.4 vs 117.0 expected (prior: 117.6)

  • Expectations: 105.4 vs 107.9 expected (prior: 108.3)
  • Current assessment: 126.3 vs 127.0 expected (prior: 127.8)
  • Despite falling below the 12-month average (115.7), the headline index remains elevated from a historical perspective.
  • This adds to evidence that GDP growth is probably nearing its peak, but also that the economic momentum should remain strong.

 

France: Business confidence (Feb.): 109 vs 110 expected (prior: 111 revised from 110)

  • Slightly down for the second consecutive month.
  • Like yesterday's PMIs, both the manufacturing and services sector indices edged lower but nonetheless remain at very healthy levels.

 

UK: GDP (Q4 Prel.): 0.4% q/q vs 0.5% expected (prior: 0.5%)

  • GDP y/y: 1.4% vs 1.5% expected (prior: 1.8%)
  • Q4 GDP was revised a tad lower to 0.4% q/q from 0.5% q/q.
  • The expenditure breakdown shows resilient consumption at 0.3% q/q (after 0.4% in Q3) while business investment continued to slow (from 0.5% q/q to flat in Q4). This suggests that corporates are holding back investment in the face of high levels of uncertainty regarding the outlook for business conditions.
Market insight 20.02.2018

ZEW slightly lower than expected in Germany

Germany: Zew (Feb): 92.3 vs 93.9 expected (prior: 95.2)

  • Expectations: 17.8 vs 16 expected (prior: 20.4)
  • Sentiment has slightly eased, probably more due to the recent decline in equity prices rather than broader concerns about the economy.

 

Germany: PPI (Jan): 0.5% m/m vs 0.3% expected (prior: 0.2%)

  • On a y/y basis: 2.1% vs 1.8% expected (prior: 2.3%)
  • Consumer goods prices rose by 0.1% m/m, while capital goods prices increased by 0.5% m/m.

 

Poland: PPI (Jan): 0.1%m/m vs 0% expected (prior: -0.3%)

  • On a y/y basis: 0.2% vs 0.1% expected (prior: 0.3%)
  • Manufacturing rose by 0.2% m/m, while electricity and gas declined by 0.3% m/m.

 

Poland: Retail sales (Jan): -20.5% m/m vs -21.2% expected (prior: 16.6%)

  • On a y/y basis: 8.2% vs 6.9% expected (prior: 6%).

 

Further reading

Market insight 23.02.2018

Euro area inflation confirmed the preliminary estimate, German Q4 GDP was in line

Eurozone: CPI (Jan F): 1.3% m/m as expected (prior: 1.3%)

  • On a m/m basis: -0.9% as expected (prior: 0.4%)
  • CPI core y/y: 1% as expected (prior: 1%)
  • Services inflation, which provides the best read in the initial report on domestically generated price increases, was unchanged from the initial report as well as from the December reading of 1.2%.

 

Germany: GDP (Q4 F): 0.6% q/q as expected (prior: 0.6%)

  • On a y/y basis: 2.3% as expected (prior: 2.3%)
  • Growth momentum in Q4 was mainly supported by foreign trade. Exports grew substantially by 2.7% q/q, while imports were also up by 2% q/q.
  • In terms of the domestic components, public consumption remained resilient in H2 17, Q3 growth has been revised up to 0.5% q/q (+0.5 ppt), in line with Q4 17 print (0.5% q/q).
  • On the investment side, gross fixed capital investment remained flat, with construction declining slightly.

 

Poland: Unemployment rate (Jan): 6.9% as expected (prior: 6.6%)

Market insight 22.02.2018

Business confidence slightly lower in France and Germany

US: Initial jobless claims (Feb. 17): 222k vs 230k expected (prior: 229k revised from 230k)

  • Initial jobless claims continue to flirt with multi-decade lows.

 

Germany: IFO (Feb.): 115.4 vs 117.0 expected (prior: 117.6)

  • Expectations: 105.4 vs 107.9 expected (prior: 108.3)
  • Current assessment: 126.3 vs 127.0 expected (prior: 127.8)
  • Despite falling below the 12-month average (115.7), the headline index remains elevated from a historical perspective.
  • This adds to evidence that GDP growth is probably nearing its peak, but also that the economic momentum should remain strong.

 

France: Business confidence (Feb.): 109 vs 110 expected (prior: 111 revised from 110)

  • Slightly down for the second consecutive month.
  • Like yesterday's PMIs, both the manufacturing and services sector indices edged lower but nonetheless remain at very healthy levels.

 

UK: GDP (Q4 Prel.): 0.4% q/q vs 0.5% expected (prior: 0.5%)

  • GDP y/y: 1.4% vs 1.5% expected (prior: 1.8%)
  • Q4 GDP was revised a tad lower to 0.4% q/q from 0.5% q/q.
  • The expenditure breakdown shows resilient consumption at 0.3% q/q (after 0.4% in Q3) while business investment continued to slow (from 0.5% q/q to flat in Q4). This suggests that corporates are holding back investment in the face of high levels of uncertainty regarding the outlook for business conditions.
Market insight 20.02.2018

ZEW slightly lower than expected in Germany

Germany: Zew (Feb): 92.3 vs 93.9 expected (prior: 95.2)

  • Expectations: 17.8 vs 16 expected (prior: 20.4)
  • Sentiment has slightly eased, probably more due to the recent decline in equity prices rather than broader concerns about the economy.

 

Germany: PPI (Jan): 0.5% m/m vs 0.3% expected (prior: 0.2%)

  • On a y/y basis: 2.1% vs 1.8% expected (prior: 2.3%)
  • Consumer goods prices rose by 0.1% m/m, while capital goods prices increased by 0.5% m/m.

 

Poland: PPI (Jan): 0.1%m/m vs 0% expected (prior: -0.3%)

  • On a y/y basis: 0.2% vs 0.1% expected (prior: 0.3%)
  • Manufacturing rose by 0.2% m/m, while electricity and gas declined by 0.3% m/m.

 

Poland: Retail sales (Jan): -20.5% m/m vs -21.2% expected (prior: 16.6%)

  • On a y/y basis: 8.2% vs 6.9% expected (prior: 6%).