I Finally Got My Banking Insider to Talk
You know how I’ve been begging my banker friend for months to help me understand finance better for my blog? He always gave me these polite brush-offs about confidentiality rules and compliance policies. Well last week he actually messaged me saying he wanted to meet for coffee and that he finally had time to explain things properly.
I practically sprinted to meet him because I’ve been wanting this conversation forever. When I got there, he looked completely different from his usual stressed banker self, much more relaxed and confident. Turns out he’d just quit his job at that big European bank and landed a CEO position at some payments company, which was obviously a huge step up for him. Since he’d left the bank behind, all those compliance restrictions that kept him quiet before were gone, so he could finally talk openly about how the industry actually works.
He said everything we discussed had to stay confidential though, with no real names or specific company details mentioned anywhere. So I decided to call him Marco because it’s such a beautiful name and suits him perfectly. When Marco told me I could ask anything I wanted to know about banking, my brain went completely empty even though I’d been planning this moment for ages. I sat there like an idiot until I remembered reading some news article about the European Investment Bank having problems, so I just blurted out a question about that.
What Marco explained to me about that whole situation completely changed how I think about banks and financial institutions in general. Apparently the European Investment Bank story is way more problematic than what you read in regular headlines. This institution takes public money from across Europe and decides which projects get massive funding for things like infrastructure, green energy programs, and development initiatives. The whole system is supposed to work with neutral, independent decision-makers who evaluate projects fairly based on merit and public benefit.
But Marco told me that in reality, each person on the management committee basically represents their home country’s interests when making these supposedly neutral decisions. The Italian executive handles applications from Italian companies, the German member focuses on German project requests, and so on. They’re all supposed to be completely objective and independent, but they’re essentially voting on funding for their own countries’ projects, which creates obvious conflicts right from the start.
Since 2019, five out of the ten people who left this decision-making committee went straight to work for companies that had received loans from the bank while they were still on the committee. Marco described one specific case where someone approved a 200 million euro loan for Budapest Airport, then joined Budapest Airport’s board of directors just two months after leaving the bank position.
When I asked if that was obviously illegal, Marco explained that there are supposed to be rules preventing exactly these situations, things like mandatory cooling-off periods and requirements to disclose potential conflicts of interest. The problem is these rules are essentially worthless in practice because board members don’t actually have to reveal their family’s financial interests, staff members can engage in unlimited outside business activities with minimal oversight, and the ethics officers who are supposed to monitor all this sit too low in the organizational hierarchy to have any real power to prevent conflicts.
So you have people making decisions about hundreds of millions in public funding while they’re already networking and planning their next career moves with companies that benefit from those same funding decisions. Marco explained that technically this might not qualify as outright corruption in legal terms, but the practical effect is exactly the same because these supposedly neutral decisions get influenced by personal career interests and future job prospects.
Get Mila Agius 🇲🇹’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Marco explained that this same dynamic of conflicting interests and non-neutral decision-making happens everywhere in the financial world, just usually on a smaller and less obvious scale. Even at regular banks, the people giving you advice and making decisions about your money have their own quotas, performance targets, and career considerations that might have nothing to do with what’s actually best for you as a customer.
Branch managers need to hit sales numbers for different products each quarter. Investment advisors earn bonuses for steering clients toward specific funds or investment vehicles. Loan officers have targets for particular types of credit products they need to push. The person sitting across from you presenting options and giving recommendations has their own professional interests that may align with yours sometimes, but definitely not always.
Marco also explained something about how banks actually view and categorize their customers that completely blew my mind. I always assumed banks competed mainly by offering better service, lower fees, or more attractive interest rates. But according to Marco, banks actually focus much more on sorting every single customer into internal profit categories and then optimizing how much money they can extract from each type of relationship.
The way Marco described it, banks operate like restaurants that treat different customers completely differently based on their spending potential. The customers who order expensive wine, multiple courses, and high-margin items get seated at the best tables with immediate attention from experienced servers who can solve any problem instantly. Meanwhile, people who just order coffee and occupy tables for hours get basic service with minimal staff attention. Some customers show potential to become bigger spenders with the right encouragement, so they get targeted with special offers, personal recommendations, and upgraded treatment designed to increase their spending. And customers who never complain, never shop around at competing restaurants, and seem content with whatever they receive can gradually have their service quality reduced or their prices increased without much risk of losing their business.
Banks categorize customers in almost exactly the same way. If you generate lots of fees through loans, investments, and frequent transactions, you get premium treatment with problems resolved immediately, fees waived when requested, and access to exclusive products and services. If you mainly just keep money in basic savings accounts, you receive minimal attention because you’re low maintenance but also low revenue for the bank. If you show signs that you might be convinced to use additional services, expect constant contact about investment products, premium account upgrades, and credit card offers. And if you’re the loyal type who never shops around or complains, the bank can slowly increase your fees or reduce service quality over time without worrying about losing your business.
Marco said most banks do a terrible job of actually tracking whether their customers are satisfied or happy with their service because they get so focused on maximizing profit extraction from each relationship that they completely miss obvious warning signs when people start getting frustrated or annoyed. This explained so many of my own banking experiences that never made sense before, like why some problems get resolved instantly while others drag on forever, why I constantly get pitched investment products I have zero interest in, and why being a longtime loyal customer never seems to earn me any special treatment or recognition.
After Marco finished explaining all of this, I just sat there trying to process everything I’d learned about how the financial world actually operates behind all the professional marketing and polished presentations. The banking industry really does not work like the neutral, customer-focused service that advertising materials suggest. These European Investment Bank problems with conflicts of interest and personal career motivations influencing supposedly public-benefit decisions reflect systematic issues that exist throughout the entire financial system.
Marco agreed to meet with me regularly from now on to help me understand more of these behind-the-scenes realities so I can write about them accurately and maybe help other people navigate these systems more effectively. Understanding how banks actually categorize and treat customers has already helped me make better sense of why certain interactions go smoothly while others feel frustrating and unproductive.
This was just our first conversation and honestly it was pretty chaotic because I kept jumping between different topics without much structure. But I’m already preparing a proper list of focused questions for our next coffee meeting because I want to understand this world much better so I can explain it clearly to people who don’t have access to banking insiders.
If you have practical questions you’d like me to ask Marco next time, please leave them in the comments. He’s interested in addressing real concerns that help people work with these financial systems more intelligently and effectively.
