Suomalaiset eläkevarat ja varhaisvaiheen yritykset – helppo ratkaisu vaikeaan ongelmaan

Suomalaisten eläkeyhtiöiden tulisi perustaa yhteinen erillisyhtiö, joka sijoittaisi omistajiensa varoja suomalaisiin varhaisvaiheen yrityksiin sekä rahastojen kautta että suoraan.

Ennen edellä väitetyn perusteluita tehkäämme lyhyt katsaus nykytilanteeseen. Jyri Engeström ja Timo Ahonpelto käsittelevät eläkeyhtiöiden sijoituksia suomalaisiin varhaisvaiheen yrityksiin podcastissään Startup-ministeriö (Kymmenkertaistetaan startup-sijoitukset, 6.11.2023). He mainitsevat eläkeyhtiöiden allokaation suomalaisiin varhaisvaiheen yrityksiin olevan tällä hetkellä noin 0,5 %:n luokkaa kaikista eläkeyhtiöiden hallinnoimista varoista. Koska eläkevaroja on yhteensä noin 250 miljardia euroa, sijoitusten euromääräiseksi arvioksi saadaan 1,25 miljardia. Tämä ei ole missään nimessä mitätön summa.

Väitän, että on suomalaisten eläkeyhtiöiden ja suomalaisen eläkejärjestelmän edunmukaista kasvattaa sijoitusallokaatiota suomalaisiin varhaisvaiheen yrityksiin. Suomi on pääomaköyhä maa, jossa on paljon hyviä ideoita, runsaasti hienoja alkuvaiheen yrityksiä ja suotuisat olosuhteet yrittämiselle. Eläkeyhtiöt eli käytännössä suomalainen eläkejärjestelmä hyötyisi kahdella tavalla menestyvistä suomalaisista yrityksistä. Ensiksi ansaitsemalla hyviä sijoitustuottoja yritysten omistajina. Toiseksi saamalla tulevaisuudessa suurempaa maksutuloa talouden dynamiikan (lue työllisyyden) parantuessa menestyvien ja kasvavien yritysten toiminnan kautta.

Jos edellä esitetty allokaation kasvattaminen nähtäisiin järkeväksi, jäisi päätettäväksi tapa toteuttaa allokaation kasvattaminen. Minusta paras ja nopein tapa on eläkeyhtiöiden (Varma, Ilmarinen, Elo, Veritas, Keva, VER) yhteinen erillisyhtiötä, joka sijoittaisi pääasiassa suomalaisiin listaamattomiin yrityksiin suoraan ja rahastojen kautta sekä omaa että vierasta pääomaa. Näen yhteiselle erillisyhtiölle useita perusteita:

  • Jos sijoituksia kasvatetaan, pitää sijoittamiseen käytettäviä resursseja kasvattaa. Lähtötilanteessa yksittäisillä eläkeyhtiöillä ei ole suomalaisiin listaamattomiin yhtiöihin erikoistuneita sijoitustiimejä, sillä nykyinen allokaatio 0,5 %:a sijoitusomaisuudesta ei ole perustellut omia tiimejään. On huomattavasti nopeampaa kerätä osaava ja hyvin resursoitu tiimi erillisyhtiöön kuin kasvattaa resursseja kaikissa eläkeyhtiöissä erikseen.
  • Erillisyhtiö voisi rakentaa prosessit, käytänteet ja kulttuurin vastaamaan varhaisvaiheen yrityksiin sijoittamisen tarpeita eikä sen tarvitsisi toimia alisteisena ison institutionaalisen sijoittajan kulttuurissa. Toisaalta eläkeyhtiöt pystyvät omistajan roolissa antamaan uudelle yhtiölle merkittävää tukea sekä tekemään strategisia valintoja pidemmälle tulevaisuuteen.
  • Mahdollisesti isoin hyöty sijoittamisesta suomalaiseen VC-kenttään tulee eläkeyhtiöille epäsuorasti kasvavina maksutuloina. Tämä hyöty tulee kaikille eläkeyhtiöille riippumatta siitä, kuka sijoittamisen toteuttaa. Tärkeintä olisi, että nämä sijoitukset toteutetaan. Erillisyhtiö varmistaisi tämän.
  • Uusi, iso toimija saisi varmasti paljon näkyvyyttä, mikä osaltaan auttaisi houkuttelemaan Suomeen uusia yrittäjiä, yrityksiä ja sijoittajia
  • Erillisyhtiö voisi olla toiminnassaan huomattavasti avoimempi kuin yksittäiset eläkeyhtiöt ovat nykyisellään. Tällöin myös yhtiön kautta sijoitettavia varoja on huomattavasti helpompi valvoa varojen omistajien eli kaikkien nykyisten ja tulevien eläkeläisten toimesta, mikä mielestäni korostuu Suomeen ja listaamattomiin yhtiöihin sijoitettaessa.
  • Erillisyhtiön kautta suomalainen eläkejärjestelmä saisi uutta ja positiivista näkyvyyttä Suomessa.
  • Uuden yhtiön kautta omistajina toimivat eläkeyhtiöt saisivat erittäin mielenkiintoisen näkökulman Suomen talouden tilaan ja pääsisivät seuramaan läheltä uusien innovaatioiden ja ideoiden muodostumista.
  • Erillisyhtiötä olisi myös mahdollista käsitellä eläkeyhtiöitä koskevassa vakavaraisuussääntelyssä ”kannustavasti”, jos eläkeyhtiöiden sijoitusriskin ottamista haluttaisiin lisätä. Sijoitusriskin lisäämisestä eläkejärjestelmästä taas tuntuu olevan laaja konsensus tällä hetkellä.

Suomi ja suomalainen eläkejärjestelmä hyötyisi suuresti lisäsijoituksista suomalaisiin listaamattomiin yrityksiin. Suomalaisessa eläkejärjestelmässä taas on runsaasti pääomia sijoitettuna ja sijoitusvarallisuus tulee kasvamaan edelleen tulevina vuosina. Monesti helpoimmat ja yksinkertaisimmat ideat ovat parhaimpia.

A quick guide to the digitalization of business processes in the financial industry

In my previous article, I defined the concept of efficiency and digitalization in the financial industry and presented the benefits it brings, with a focus on interoperability and business transformation agility. I am now using my first-hand experience at leading efforts in this area to come up with ten basic rules to avoid the main pitfalls and apply best practice.

Rule #1: Change has to come from the top

There are a number of reasons why the transformation of business processes in a financial institution needs to be strongly anchored in the top management.

Firstly, it should be clearly aligned to the strategic priorities and the vision to be achieved. Where does the firm aim to be in three to five years from now? How does the transformation fit into the current overall strategy? For instance, if the focus is on short term cost cutting, I would advise on a low-tech streamlining of individual workflows and the introduction of robots to replace more expensive humans wherever possible. If on the contrary the institution is aiming at a leading role in the future financial ecosystems where interoperability will be a prerequisite, the project should start with a review of the overall technological architecture and be driven on a company basis.

The other reason is that change does not happen by itself, especially in incumbent financial institutions where the staff is used to doing things in a certain way and where Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) are too often missing. In addition, individual units are primarily focused on their KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) which are usually short term goals in a “business as usual” mindset. It is therefore the role of upper management to take the balcony view, set longer term goals, allocate the resources and follow-up on the achievements.

In any case, it is also only upper management which can break the mental barriers to change. People tend to love the status quo and the hurdle to change how things have always been done is really high. Yes, initiatives will be regularly started from the ground by enthusiastic employees, but unless they get support which goes beyond moral encouragement, they will tire and return to their business-as-usual mindset.

Rule #2: Someone needs to take a driving role for any given end-to-end process

End-to-end processes involve, by definition, a number of units, including the front line sales team, the product units as well as the support units (compliance, middle and back office, etc.). Each one can try to improve its own way of doing, i.e. its contribution to the full workflow, but if no one takes the responsibility of the whole value chain, little will happen.

Hence the need for a driver with a clear mandate from management.

In many cases, the customer fronting unit is the one best place to take ownership of the whole value chain since they are the first one to suffer from inefficient processes. For instance when admin tasks take too much of their time, errors are regularly made and customers complain about long delays in answering their requests. Ultimately, they are responsible for what is delivered to their customers, they get allocated all the costs involved and they are the only unit with the total view on the end-to-end value chain.

Rule #3: Start from the core processes

It is tempting to address a specific process inefficiency with a local solution. It is in fact the way to go if solving this pain point can be done by redesigning it (how information is flowing, who is involved, etc.) and questioning rules (for instance internal procedures to comply with a given regulation can be unnecessarily strict). But if the effort involves the use of technology at scale, it makes sense to start with the core processes.

Core processes attract more attention and are more likely to get funding and resources. A cascading effect can then be initiated by demanding the digitalization of connected processes and is a good opportunity to insist on having clear internal SLAs (Service Level Agreements) and full auditability and visibility of those supporting processes.

Rule #4: Use common sense before calling-in a robot or an AI

Transforming end-to-end processes in a profound way requires the widespread use of technology (Digital platforms, robots, workflow tools, iBPMs, AI, etc.) but also to apply common sense. My experience is that some of the initiatives require substantial development resources and IT budget, but many of them are more about clarifying roles and responsibilities, and challenging the internal guidelines which in many cases have become outdated.

A method used by my former employer really made a difference. We created ChangeLabs which gathered around a facilitator all the participants in a specific value chain for a time-boxed “sprint” lasting a few weeks. This brought a structure as well as a proven framework for analysing the pain points, prioritising the issues and looking for concrete, and primarily short term, solutions.

Rule #5: Optimising current processes is not the end game

A trap I have noticed too many times is the urge to improve current processes without reflecting on the possibility to completely reinvent them. The risk is to focus on doing better what has always been done, to improve bits and pieces or even to make them more digital or automated. Instead, end-to-end processes should be rethought totally and redesigned in the best possible way, using technology where it makes sense.

Digitalization efforts should also be seen as a unique opportunity to question the status-quo, anticipate what is coming in the financial industry sector and prepare for it. For instance, what if the existing business model or large chunks of it start to be obsolete in 5 or 10 years time? It is generally difficult to grasp the industry trends and conclude on how they will affect the current business, but one thing can be done: to keep options open. In this respect and since ecosystems are becoming prevalent, building a high level of interoperability for the key business processes is a decision which has little downside.

Rule #6: Aim at modularisation

Such interoperability is reached when processes and sub-processes can plug-and-play into each other and with the external world. This means that, when processes are redesigned, the goal should be to move towards modularisation: each process should be chopped into a series of modules (or micro-services) built as APIs. This brings flexibility and the ability to easily change or upgrade a given micro-service.

For instance, a modular corporate lending process is made up of micro-services that are integrated together to deliver, i.a., the credit rating of the customer, the list of all the bank’s exposures to a given customer, or the industry sector analysis. When this is achieved, data can flow between systems in real time, eliminating rekeying, manual imports and inconsistent formatting. In such a set-up, a good governance model is really important, with in particular each microservice having an owner, i.e. someone responsible for its performance and improvement.

Rule #7: Measure what you can, before and after

As Peter Drucker coined it, “you can’t manage what you can’t measure”. This is all the more valid in a business efficiency project where the development budget needed will be weighted against the benefits it will bring. To be credible, the business case needs to include easily measurable and credible parameters like cost to process (primarily employee time needed), speed (time from initiation of the process to the delivery of its output) and reliability (down-time, number of errors and related costs).

Other benefits, for example increased sales thanks to more efficient processes, better auditability of those processes or the production of extra data are more difficult to measure. And when it comes to technology infrastructure transformation, for instance to reach a high level of interoperability, it is more about a strategic bet on the future than an excel calculation (although in many cases those will be produced).

Rule #8: Communicate relentlessly

Like for any change initiative, it pays off to involve at an early stage all those who will be affected, for instance by interviewing as many of them as possible on the current processes and asking for improvement suggestions. During the development phase, progress reports should be circulated very regularly (or better, presented in person) not only to management but equally importantly to those who will be affected by the change. And during the implementation of new processes, especially when technology is used and affects the way people cooperate with each other (for instance an iBPMS platform), you should not take for granted that those affected will immediately change their way of doing and you should instead continue to evangelise the benefits generated.

In fact, it is smart to groom early adopters to be advocates of the new processes, by involving them all along and using them as a reference board. They will be very instrumental to spread the good word, especially if they are considered as influencers.

Rule #9: Be ready for setbacks

Changing the way things are currently done faces resistance from many directions, so be prepared for a roller coaster of achievements and setbacks. I have for instance met the following obstacles:

  • Multiple stakeholders in the value chain, making the anchoring, decision making, prioritisation and funding process cumbersome;
  • Scarce resources within stakeholder teams, especially in support units which have experienced staff reduction and near or off-shoring, leaving experienced employees with very little time for development initiatives;
  • IT organisation (development and architecture) more concerned about keeping the shop running and avoiding risks;
  • Kafkaesque process for evaluating and onboarding external technology providers or partners.

Rule #10: Keep a positive spirit

Be patient with the naysayers, they are often just worried about their job. And resist those who argue that “we need to fix the basics first to get a good foundation in place before we can truly innovate and transform”. I agree that it is difficult to innovate when there is a weak platform, processes are manual and data access and quality are poor. But if you listen to them, there will always be something to be fixed first.

As I like to say, attitude is everything …

In my next article, after taking a harsh look at the role of traditional business consultants, I will try to define a novel way to combine external contributions with internal competence build-up.

The digitalization of business processes in the financial industry is becoming a licence to operate

In a series of three articles, I first describe why the digitalization of business processes in the financial industry is becoming a licence to operate. I then move on to the how and enact ten rules to avoid the main pitfalls as well as apply best practice. And in a third text on the by whom, after taking a harsh look at the role of traditional business consultants, I try to define a novel way to combine external advice with internal competence build-up.

Let’s now start by defining what it is all about and present the benefits it brings, with a focus on the new elephant in the room: interoperability. In particular I argue that, although efficiency gains have so far been its prime driver, interoperability (plug-and-play modularity with real time connections for all the main processes and sub-processes), by enabling business transformation agility, will soon prevail as the main incentive for the digitalization of business processes in the financial sector.

It is all about data management

The financial industry sector has in common the offering of immaterial products and services: whether it is an insurance, a loan or an investment fund, the only thing that is produced and moved around is data and its more elaborate form, information. A financial business process is therefore a sequential series of tasks, or workflow, that takes a set of data to a finished state. Apart from the customer relationship which in certain cases still needs to be handled physically, the financial industry is therefore essentially about sourcing, processing, analysing and storing data.

Process efficiency is (nearly) synonymous with process digitalization

In this respect, digitization should not be mixed up with digitalization. Digitization is the action of converting information into a digital (i.e. computer-readable) format whilst the digitalization of a process is its adaptation so that it can be operated with the use of computers and the internet. Hence digitization is generally the first step in the journey towards the digitalization of a process. In turn, process efficiency aims at improving a process (to be faster, cheaper, more reliable, etc.) which can be done in many ways, including simply redesigning it or off-shoring it, but in a data driven industry, it also generally ends-up involving its digitalization.

The financial industry relies on a few key processes

It starts with the customer interface to handle bilateral communications and extends to the underlying processes to support it (identification and authorisation, execution of a customer request, display of information about the status of the relationship, etc). Another one relates to the customer life cycle management which, in a highly regulated industry, has an inflated role since it is strongly linked to compliance, from customer onboarding, KYC (Know Your Customer) and AML (Anti Money Laundering) procedures, until possibly exit scenarios. I can also mention the end-to-end processes related to the offering, delivery and administration of financial products and services, as well as all the processes supporting risk management.

The many facets of process efficiency

Process efficiency means different things depending on the type of process. In the customer interface, it is generally a portal accessible from a computer or designed as a mobile app. It should be easy to log-in, have a clear interface, display all the relevant information, guarantee a secure communication, give access to a document library and allow you to handle all usual requests, not to mention the fast improving chatbots. In addition, the portal should be connected to all the corresponding internal systems to maximise the level of automation. With corporate customers, the interface should be complemented by APIs so that the systems of the customer can directly communicate with those of the financial service provider.

For other processes, such as AML or the administration of transactions, a high level of automation is usually pursued, with only exceptional cases surfacing to be handled by a human. In addition, some processes, like the credit decision making for corporate customers, require the cooperation of a large number of units inside the organisation. In this case, a iBPMS (intelligent Business Process Management System) can be the solution, integrating in an overall platform the required subprocesses (for instance sourcing the data related to outstanding credit exposures, or the delivery of the credit rating).

In fact, some argue that the implementation of a iBPMS is the solution for all process implementations, with applications and data sources below this layer. It doesn’t need to be the only interface but should be connected and responsible for them.

Benefits go well beyond lower costs, faster processes and fewer errors

The most immediate benefit of streamlining and digitalizing an end-to-end process is the resulting improvement in internal efficiency with a faster process, a quicker decision making and ultimately lower internal costs. All of this with a consistency in quality, more predictable execution times and a better auditability, the latter point being key in the highly regulated financial industry. Another benefit is that it allows to create a modern digital communication channel with customers such that it is not just a digital user interface requiring manual work on the back of it but a real end-to-end integrated process.

A digitalized process also produces new data which can be used by management, for instance related to cost transparency or potential bottlenecks, and supports the prioritisation of internal development portfolios and workforce capacity planning. In addition, an automated process means that the operations, and in particular tailored client solutions, are more scalable.

Interoperability is the new elephant in the room

Streamlining and digitalizing a single process, even end-to-end, is an achievement. However, a financial institution will only get the full benefits if all the efficiency efforts are coordinated at company level. In particular, it is only when the overall technological architecture allows a plug-and-play modularity with real time connections for all the processes and sub-processes, that it will reach the interoperability level needed for an effective business model transformation.

In practice, it will allow to break internal silos and build platforms that can support multiple segments, markets and activities. For instance, my experience is that units serving the retail segment have had their own processes and systems supporting them, distinct from those serving the corporate segment, falsely justified by the fact that the two business models are so different. But when each sub-process is transformed into a micro-service that can be plugged into other micro-services through APIs, most of them can be used in both segments.

Externally, the benefits of interoperability are even larger. It starts with making optimal use of the cloud and other vendors services. It greatly facilitates outsourcing and using shared service centres (for instance asset servicers and custodians in the wealth management sector). It also lowers the barrier to partner with Fintechs, technology vendors or data providers. Even the collaboration with competing firms, for example when building a joint Know Your Customer (KYC) data gathering platform, is greatly facilitated.

Corporate customers will also increasingly demand the possibility to connect through APIs with the systems of their financial service provider. For instance, corporate treasurers looking at automating their operations prefer to be able to handle cash management or trade finance related tasks directly from their system, without having to manually log into the bank’s customer portal.

From process efficiency to business transformation agility

Efficiency gains have so far been the prime driver of efforts to streamline and digitalize business processes, if only because it is easier to build an internal business case to obtain a development budget when you can use easily measurable parameters, such as cost reduction, time saving or fewer errors.

I however believe that, as interoperability brings business transformation agility and in many instances is becoming a licence to operate, it will soon prevail as the main incentive for the digitalization of business processes in the financial sector.

In the next article, I will put together a quick guide on how to carry-out the streamlining and digitalization of business processes, describing how to avoid the main pitfalls and apply best practice.