Connect with us

Finance

Tech vs finance: the social wars

Published

on

Tech vs finance: the social wars

Stay informed with free updates

In Stendhal’s The Red and the Black, a book that is never far from me, the colours refer to two careers. The first is the army. The other is the priesthood. The setting is Bourbon Restoration France but it could be almost anywhere in the west, at almost any time until the dawn of industry, such was the importance of these vocations to the national order.  

In our world, the two ruling careers are no harder to name. It is tech and finance, The T-shirt and the Gilet, that have first refusal on the ablest graduates. It is tech and finance whose executives are interviewed for their musings on politics and life. As the Google office in King’s Cross nears completion, London, an ancient financial hub too, is a useful place from which to assess these distinct clans. 

And to learn to prefer, on average, the company of finance. There is a client-facing side to that business — the dinners, the silver-tongued sales calls — that instils a minimum of suaveness. In much of tech, the “client” is a vast and remote public. So no such practice. 

Advertisement

Note that, while the world’s financial centres are almost all urban, tech often chooses a low-density setting, such as the Santa Clara Valley or the Fens. Even Bengaluru is India’s Garden City. Some of this is historical accident. But it is also the result, and perhaps a cause, of tech’s social diffidence. I needn’t dwell on the sector’s ultra-individualist political turn here. Or the Andrew Huberman-led zeal for health, whose logical endpoint is a scandalised recoil from bodily contact. Even on the warmer side of tech, that of effective altruism and people aching to do good, there is a trace of Beatrice Webb about the approach to humankind, as something to help rather than like. Tech’s real or potential achievements on behalf of us all might dwarf those of finance. But over a drink? Give me the FX sales-trade bod. 

Another thing. Finance has more — don’t laugh too hard now — humility. Precisely because banking in particular has a bad name, at least post-Lehman, at least outside America, its practitioners have to tread gingerly these days. People whom the world is disposed to hate tend to learn a sort of pre-emptive charm. (Which is why the biggest snobs in Britain are almost never Etonians.) Tech hasn’t had its 2008 yet, and might never. It is high on itself to a degree that can be easier to respect from a distance than to be around.  

A woman cycles past the Google office in Mountain View, California © Getty Images

“Humble” doesn’t mean interesting, of course. Nor does “suave”. Because I have to come up with ideas for a living, I will put up with a lot for a conversation that throws up a eureka moment. So, which side is more stimulating company? The raw processing power of the tech minds I encounter leaves me standing. But my test — am I still thinking of the discussion on the Tube home? — is met no more often by them than by bankers or hedgies or less gilded professions. One problem is the tech world’s impatience with history, which is inevitable when the grandest companies don’t much predate the millennium. The result is a fixation with transient events and “trends” that someone with a wider lens might recognise as froth. 

The other conversational glitch is that undergraduate contrarianism you see all the way up from the local crypto bore to the billionaire class. Your finance bro is hardly immune. (“Putin just wants a warm water port.”) But something about belonging to an establishment profession will tend to take the edge off. The archetypal tech genius — fabulously credentialed, but somehow as overeager to impress as an autodidact — must be peculiar to a young industry. 

All ethnographic observations about these two tribes have to be qualified, of course. For one thing, tech and finance can be hard to tell apart. (Where should we file Sam Bankman-Fried?). Still, much the biggest change in the world of work since I entered it is the relative decline of the one against the other as the prestige industry. If all finance retains is the social edge, tech will find it a trivial deficit, next to pay and power, if also much the hardest to overcome.

Advertisement

janan.ganesh@ft.com

Find out about our latest stories first — follow FT Weekend on Instagram and X, and sign up to receive the FT Weekend newsletter every Saturday morning

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Finance

Norway faces dilemma on openness in wealth fund ethical divestments, finance minister says

Published

on

Norway faces dilemma on openness in wealth fund ethical divestments, finance minister says
When Norway’s $2.2 trillion wealth fund — the world’s largest — sells a company’s shares over ethical concerns, should it explain why? This seemingly simple question has ​become a dilemma for its guardians, the finance minister told Reuters, as a government commission reviews the rules that have made the fund a ‌global benchmark for ethical investing.
Continue Reading

Finance

Morgan Stanley sees writing on wall for Citi before major change

Published

on

Morgan Stanley sees writing on wall for Citi before major change

Banks have had a stellar first quarter. The major U.S. banks raked in nearly $50 billion in profits in the first three months of the year, The Guardian reported.

That was largely due to Wall Street bank traders, who profited from a volatile stock exchange, Reuters showed.

But even without the extra bump from stock trading, banks are doing well when it comes to interest, the same Reuters article found. And some banks could stand to benefit even more from this one potential rule change.

Morgan Stanley thinks it could have a major impact on Citi in particular.

Upcoming changes for banks

To understand why Morgan Stanley thinks things are going to change at Citi, you need to understand some recent bank rule changes.

Advertisement

Banks make money by lending out money, which usually comes from depositors. But people need access to their money and the right to withdraw whenever they want.

So, banks keep a percentage of all money deposited to make sure they can cover what the average person needs.

But what happens if there is a major demand for withdrawals, as we saw during the financial crisis of 2008?

That’s where capital requirements come in. After the financial crisis, major banks like Citi were required by law to hold a higher percentage of money in order to avoid major bank failures.

For years, banks had to put aside billions of dollars. Money that couldn’t be lent out or even returned to shareholders.

Advertisement

Now, that’s all about to change.

Morgan Stanley thinks Citigroup could see an uptick in profit. Getty Images

Capital change requirements for major banks

Banks that are considered globally systemically important banking organizations (G-SIBs) have a higher capital buffer than community banks as they usually engage in banking activity that is far more complicated than your average market loan.

The list depends on the size of the bank and its underlying activity, according to the Federal Reserve.

Current global systemically important banks

A proposal from U.S. federal banking regulators could drastically reduce the amount that these large banks have to hold in reserve.

Changes would result in the largest U.S. banks holding an average 4.8% less. While that might seem like a small percentage number, for banks of this size, it equates to billions of dollars, according to a Federal Reserve memo.

Advertisement

The proposed changes were a long time coming, Robert Sarama, a financial services leader at PwC, told TheStreet.

“It’s a bit of a recognition that perhaps the pendulum swung a little too far in the higher capital requirement following the financial crisis, making it harder for banks to participate in some markets,” he said.

Citi’s upcoming relief  

Citi is a G-SIB and as such, is subject to the capital requirement rules. And the fact that it could get 4.8% of its money back to spend elsewhere is why Morgan Stanley is so optimistic about the bank.

In a research note, Morgan Stanley analysts said they expect Citi’s annualized net income to be better than expected due to the upcoming capital relief.

Advertisement

While Citi stated its return on average tangible common equity (ROTCE), a type of financial measure, to be close to 13% by 2028, “the fact that Citi’s near-term and medium-term targets excluding capital relief were only marginally below our expectations including capital relief actually suggest upside to our numbers if Citi can deliver,” the note said.

More bank news

In fact, Citigroup’s own projections are likely conservative and it’s likely to show improvement each year, the analysts expanded.

“We have high conviction that the proposed capital rules will be finalized later this year and expect Citi can eventually revise the medium-term targets higher, suggesting further upside to consensus,” the Morgan Stanley analysts wrote.

Related: Citi just added an AI agent to your wealth management team

Advertisement

This story was originally published by TheStreet on May 11, 2026, where it first appeared in the Investing section. Add TheStreet as a Preferred Source by clicking here.

Continue Reading

Finance

Couple forced to live in caravan buy first home as ‘stars align’ in off-market sale

Published

on

Couple forced to live in caravan buy first home as ‘stars align’ in off-market sale
Natasha, 34, and Luke, 45, settled on their new home last month. (Source: Supplied)

Natasha Luscri and Luke Miller consider themselves among the lucky ones. The couple recently bought their first home in the northwest suburbs of Melbourne.

It wasn’t something they necessarily expected to be able to do, but some good fortune with an investment in silver bullion and making use of government schemes meant “the stars aligned” to get into the market. Luke used the federal government’s super saver scheme to help build a deposit, and the couple then jumped on the 5 per cent deposit scheme, which they say made all the difference.

“We only started looking because of the government deposit scheme. Basically, we didn’t really think it was possible that we could buy something,” Natasha told Yahoo Finance.

RELATED

Last month they settled on their two bedroom unit, which the pair were able to purchase in an off-market sale – something that is becoming increasingly common in the market at the moment.

Advertisement

Rather perfectly, they got it for about $20-30,000 below market rate, Natasha estimated, which meant they were under the $600,000 limit to avoid paying stamp duty under Victoria’s suite of support measures for first home buyers.

“They wanted to sell it quickly. They had no other offers. So we got it for less than what it would have gone for if it had been on market,” Natasha said.

“We didn’t have a lot of cash sitting in an account … I think we just got lucky and made some smart investment decisions which helped.”

It’s a far cry from when the couple couldn’t find a home due to the rental crisis when they were previously living in Adelaide and had to turn to sub-standard options.

“We’ve managed to go from living in a caravan because we were living in Adelaide and we couldn’t find a rental with our dogs … So we’ve gone from living in a caravan, being kind of tertiary homeless essentially because we couldn’t get a rental, to now having been able to purchase our first home,” Natasha explained.

Advertisement

Rate rises beginning to bite for new homeowners

Natasha, 34, and Luke, 45, are among more than 300,000 Australians who have used the 5 per cent deposit scheme to get into the housing market with a much smaller than usual deposit, according to data from Housing Australia at the end of March. However that’s dating back to 2020 when the program first launched, before it was rebranded and significantly expanded in October last year to scrap income or placement caps, along with allowing for higher property price caps.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending