Please consider an article by Emily Cadman, on Bloomberg, Ignoring Women Costs the Financial Industry $700 Billion a Year.
The male-dominated finance industry is missing out on more than $700 billion a year in revenue by failing to listen to or tailor products for women, according to management consultancy Oliver Wyman.
“Women are arguably the single largest under-served group of customers in financial services,” Jessica Clempner, the report’s lead author, said in a statement Tuesday. “Firms are leaving money on the table by not listening to and understanding their women customers.”
No Link to Study
The article did not post a link to the study. Bloomberg seldom does. This makes it hard to see what the report really said or how.
Only Two Costs Cited
There are the only two cost examples mentioned in the article.
- If insurers sold life policies to women at the same rate as to men, they could generate $500 million in new premiums, Oliver Wyman estimated.
- Women also tend to hold more of their assets in cash rather than stocks and bonds, costing wealth and asset managers a potential $25 billion in fees.
Assuming those numbers are accurate, they total $25.5 billion a year.
Where the hell is the other $674.5 billion?
Please don't tell me that the $500 million was supposed to be $500 billion because I will not believe that either. Besides, if women are more cautious perhaps they are a bit smarter. Other than term-life, most insurance schemes are pure garbage.
And as for the $25 billion, with trading fees down to zero, I am more than a bit suspicious of that number as well.
OK. Let's lure women into new women-designed ETFs.
Q: Did the author propose one?
Q: Did Jessica Clempner, the report’s lead author?
A. Who the hell knows because there is no link to the report.
But seriously, are ETF's and services designed for women going to bring in the other $674.5 billion?
Nonetheless, this story is likely to go viral because of the preposterous claims. Few will realize what happened. The parrots at Yahoo! Finance already picked it up, without comment or additional links, but did leave out the link to the Oliver Wyman advertisement.
There is no study, wild numbers, and a missing $674.5 billion out of an amazing $700 billion claim.
Instead there is a link to an Oliver Wyman advertisement.
What is this all about?
Cadman's article smacks of a paid-for infomercial, not so cleverly disguised with hype clickbait.
Bloomberg modified the article and indeed did change $500 million to $500 billion.
As readers pointed out, it's still bullshit.
Carl: "Even if one company was ignoring women, or 10, or 100, some company would prosper by catering to them. That's how the free market works. It's absurd to think that, of the thousands and thousands of big and small financial services companies, not one would offer these products. What could be simpler? If she believes her story, she should invest her life savings into the opportunity she has uncovered. What could possibly go wrong?"
Webej: "$700 billion is a lot of money to generate from fee and transaction costs."
Mish Final Thought
Yeah right. Companies are leaving $700 billion on the table, and not one woman is smart enough to start her firm and go after it!
Somehow, this is the fault of men.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock