BFSI can’t treat second holders as second-class citizens

• Follow

This is the story of a well-educated, globally traveled, upper-middle-class middle-aged couple from Mumbai – Mrs & Mr, who live in cosmopolitan India. As people involved (now or before) in Corporate India, both of them understood the pressures of the current world dynamics. In the interests of the ease of handling their personal finances, they have almost all their assets in joint accounts (with necessary nominations and their individual Wills of succession).

With the husband being primary & main earner, most of the financial accounts are in his name as the “first holder” or “first applicant, while the wife is the “second holder” or “second applicant”, depending on the nomenclature used by the respective BFSI regulator.

As a couple, the wife being more detail-oriented takes money-related decisions. (And it has been told to all the contact points they deal with in their BFSI adventures!). All the accounts are in “either-or survivor” operational mode. All this sounds fantastically well, almost sounding like “happiness for life, ever after”.

That’s when the penny drops! Sic.

Fun (or frustration) starts now If the second holder calls the designated RM or at times the bank call centre, they will be told to ask the first holder to call – to leave any requisite or change old instructions!

The banks will be happy to open a joint account with Mr or Mrs as the 2nd holder. And yet will hide behind regulations and address (in all its customer communication) – only the “first holder”.

They use the “relationship banking” concept in theory, in their various off-sites and of course, their CXOs use it on TV. Yet their communication (call-centre / written / email) won’t even address the “second holder”. Surely the industry, if it’s serious about it, can discuss with their regulator to correct any regulatory obstacle to set this right!

By the way, in the above customer anecdote, the term “banks” can be replaced by any of “mutual fund”, “insurance company”, with the same observations.

The BFSI entities use individual agents / IFAs / consumer touchpoints on their behalf. Amongst them are a few individuals who are evolved in their personal philosophy in treating customers very fairly and equally. And in quickly grasping who & how to address/customise their communication and in the relationship of handling their customers.

“Is sir there”? In most cases agents with a stereotypical mindset think “the man of the house will decide” and the most annoying statement is “ma’am, can you confirm with sir?”. Just “maam”ing with politeness does not solve for it. She could be the decision-maker and the family money-manager.

Extrapolate this true-life experience to any other couple, across India, irrespective of their socio-economic status or geography, and the situation could be worse off. Much of the Indian financial accounts have the “Mr” as the first holder and the “Mrs” as the 2nd holder.

A quote to remember: Zara in Act III, Scene II in the play “The mourning bride”, written by British playwright William Congreve (year 1697) :

“Heav’n has no rage, like love to hatred turn’d, Nor hell a fury, like a woman scorn’d” This is usually paraphrased as “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”