Can you identify Traitors?

In an age of terms like “patriot” being used in that very reductive American way, the idea of a traitor is repackaged as someone who opposes such a narrow definition. The ‘othering’ of people who hold different beliefs or values is currently rife throughout much of the world. It seems that reasonable discussion, debate and democracy are all under significant attack. I’m sure you know who and what I am referring to.

The idea of trust is being challenged and what we see and hear isn’t as trustworthy or reliable as it once was, in part due to quite deliberate manipulation and misinformation, but also due to the fabrication of our visual world. The falsification of information is possible due to technology that is so good, and it is now very difficult to tell if the family member or friend you are seeing or hearing on your digital device is actually who you think. The dystopian vision of 1980s movies like The Running Man are now our reality.

You probably haven’t avoided the BBC show Traitors. I hadn’t seen the previous shows and agreed to watch the ‘celebrity’ version. It was and is intriguing. On the one hand it seems a bit like a childhood game of murder in the dark crossed with hide and seek with a bit of Cluedo and the Krypton Factor thrown in for good measure.

What I hadn’t expected to witness was the way people are persuaded as readily as they are, to see (albeit via a BBC edit) how people assess each other for honesty, integrity and trust. The results are not good. We aren’t very good at assessing characters, at least – not as good as we would wish to believe.

On the political stage this helps explain a little why some people seem willing to believe what many of us would recognise as an obvious liar or fraud. I suspect that deep down many of us are aware that perhaps our ability to discern isn’t as good as it might be.

In the context of financial services, trust is vital, but of course is the one element that is so frequently abused or lost. The media is awash with stories and information of fraud, abuse and corruption. Regulation helps but is often too little too late. I regularly come across people who have experienced ‘advisers’ who sell them expensive funds or products and who (to my mind) clearly fail to sit on the side of the client – which is our role.

It’s obviously not a problem unique to finance, but where money is involved, integrity and character will either surface or disappear. This week I heard yet another story about siblings squabbling over the redistribution of their father’s estate. The same parents but clearly the children have different moral compasses.

How we assess people as trustworthy is an important skill and none of us have a flawless ability. We all make errors of judgement, the hardest being those we repeat.

Transparency helps of course, by which I mean clearly revealing information showing how the trusted person benefits from any action taken. I remember that prior to 1995 we didn’t even have to disclose how much commission we earned. So when

I set up Solomon’s four years later in 1999, I did so by having a clear pricing model (without commission). It was innovative at the time, but woefully naive. It took the regulator a further 13 years to make all advisers agree fees properly with clients (as we had been doing since 1999).

Being ahead, or being first, or being thoughtfully objective, didn’t really help the business to expand or thrive, in fact it was a very hard time convincing people of our approach. I was reminded of this whilst watching Traitors, being right (identifying the traitor) often backfires, with an unwillingness for some to disbelieve the narratives set by those with most to lose (the actual traitors). However good, rational or clear the argument, many were persuaded by their gut instinct or unwillingness to suspect foul play by those they thought ‘trustworthy’. We also have a tendency to avoid conflict or change, accepting the truth, sadly, isn’t as easy as it should be.

As a viewer, we feel exasperated by the folly and lack of good thinking, when it is exhibited and ignored we may feel despair, but of course we have the unfair and enormous advantage of knowing who the traitor is! In our real world it is much harder to tell.

Our values are aligned with yours, as you win, we win. As you lose, we lose.

It’s not a perfect system or model, it’s not cheap, but it’s the best I’ve been able to come up with over last three decades. We will remain faithful to your best plans.

References:

• PIA – commission disclosure 1995
• FSA – RDR 2012