One of the reasons I'm interest in a fintech company is that we don't really know how impactful technology "should have been."
Wut?
People who do no think that innovation in established businesses is important point to the lack of measurable and significant impact across industries. But I don't think you can lay this at the feet of the tech.
The responsibility here lies at the feet of management in two primary ways.
1. I've sat across from the CFO of two of the largest banks in the United States. Both before COVID hit. Each of them regurgitated the old MBA line that they use capital to buyback stock when it is viewed as a good use of capital (using the cost of capital as a guideline). Then, COVID hits and nobody is ready to even consider implementing remote work. How can a bank like JPMorgan, with an $8 billion+ technology budget miss this? Because the mone is being spent to directly benefit shareholders, rather than making employees more efficient and effective which would impact shareholders but indirectly.
2. Tech is never fully implemented. The reverberation would have been much more significant in terms of jobs and other issues. INstead enough money is spent to "adopt" new technology without disrupting the business as completely as it could. Is this a bad decision? Not if you are printing billions of dollars a quarter. But it does blunt the potential impact of technology on the business.
What should have the impact from technology advances over the 20 years have been? I don't think we'll ever know.
No comments:
Post a Comment