While this commentary tends to focus on Europe, its lessons for the wider world are important. In a number of developed countries, those who serve HNW clients must think their livelihoods are under pressure unless they make changes. The wealth sector still has a bit of an image problem. How can it move the dial?

Looking back at 2025 and considering where the world’s wealth management sector is heading, one conclusion is inescapable: hostility to great wealth has risen in some developed countries.

Whether it is calls for wealth taxes or other measures, I cannot help thinking that there is an unmistakably difficult environment for the industry in places such as the UK, although it is not easy to generalise. True, the sector is mobile and firms which look after HNW individuals leaving for friendlier climes can often move with them. But not everyone has that luxury.

The rise of what might be called “zero-sum” views about economics and notions of justice cannot be ignored any longer. This is particularly the case given changing views among younger people. Back in 2021, a survey, based on views of 2,000 people aged 16 to 34, and commissioned by the Institute of Economic Affairs, a UK think tank, found that more than two-thirds (67 per cent) said that they would like to live in a socialist economic system. (Of course, the effects of living in one might dim its charms.)

It makes sense to wonder how we got here and reasons abound as to why; a decade-plus of ultra-low interest rates after the GFC leading to inflated house prices, choking off the opportunity for young adults to get on the housing ladder, for example. If you cannot easily work out how to build capital, you won’t like capitalism (I admit that the noun can be hard to define precisely, and others might prefer “market economy”). If banks that are badly run are rescued by taxpayers, that also hurts the case.

But whatever has happened, a question worth asking is what is to be done if you are a private banker, wealth manager or family office principal? Can you just hope for the best, try to handle money as shrewdly as possible and wait for better times? Or are there actions you can take right now?

I think there are a few ideas worth considering and indulge me if I suggest a few of them, particularly on areas that apply to younger people seeking to make sense of finance and business – and who are also voters.

First, the industry needs to recognise the situation it is in. For a long time, the story of a multi-trillion-dollar/equivalent wealth transfer taking place has been the backing music of our time. It is just assumed that this gargantuan flood of money is merrily flowing, with wealth managers needing to focus mainly on how to profit from it. I think that’s becoming a lazy assumption. There needs to be more focus on how the wealth industry supports businessmen and women trying to build something new. And as a part of this, the sector could show the public that in supporting the “builders of the future,” as it were, it is also supporting the wider economy. This industry must become much better at “connecting the dots.”

Part of the charm of being in this fascinating business is that advisors, bankers and others are able to deal with people who are good at “seeing around corners” – the innovators who forge new business models, the people who disrupt flabby industries and alter the way services and products are delivered. Apart from anything else, these movers and shakers are, or ought to be, the kind of people that ambitious young folk emulate. Wealth management must do far more to make sure that its role is central in this.

A specific example is the UK government trying, it says, to boost the London Stock Exchange’s fortunes by its three-year stamp duty holiday on IPO shares. While this does not go far enough, the UK sector should applaud whatever moves can be made to encourage companies, where appropriate, to float on markets, or, if they are unlisted, to explain their reasoning behind capital raising and why it is important. I would like to see more examples from the sector on how it can help this kind of process even more. The relentless message should be that “we are backing people who want to build.”

The UK and other developed countries often have crumbling public infrastructure. So, show how the wealth management sector can insert itself into this conversation and how it can steer capital into where it is needed, and produce some results. Suggest ideas such as special bonds for funding particular areas, including perhaps “defence bonds” for those worried about defence, for example, or “R&D bonds".

Let’s talk plainly about money
A second main point is how the wealth industry could help to tackle poor financial literacy. The language of money can be hard to understand – almost incomprehensible, with awful jargon. I think industry groups such as PIMFA in the UK and their counterparts overseas must encourage firms to make what they offer as clear as possible. If firms want to build financial literacy initiatives, and reach out to schools and colleges, this should be encouraged. If schools and colleges object for whatever reason, demand answers as to why.

Such outreach does not have to involve lots of glossy marketing activity – in fact it would be best if that were kept under control. Firms should share examples with young people about what they do and give concrete, real-life examples. “Show don’t tell” is important. Remember that a lot of students will be influenced about their views of business and finance by what they hear from their teachers, friends and family. It is easy to see how biases come in, particularly given that social media is so important as well. I doubt TV dramas such as White Lotus or Succession helped the case for those working with HNW clients. Alas, this is the culture of the day.

Outreach
Part of this process might involve encouraging financial professionals, including younger people in firms and, of course, women as well as men, to be encouraged to go out in the wider community and talk about what they do and why it is important. I don’t think your average university undergraduate has met a “private banker” – it would not be a bad idea to address that. And how many schoolkids who study a few miles from the City in London, or financial districts of Frankfurt, Paris or New York have set foot in a bank office, or even imagined this would be possible?

Doing more in this “outreach” area might seem daunting but consider the popularity of some TV and online media influencers who talk about money. Not all of this is without problems – but then banks/wealth managers can surely throw their weight around more to take standards up a level?

A third initiative would be to do more to explain why the wealth management sector matters, – that it's not just for rich people. The sector could illustrate why, for example, a thriving wealth industry helps the economic pie get bigger and expands a country’s tax base, resulting in everyone's average tax burden going down rather than up. But to reach that sort of insight, firms must first explain why they matter even to those who don’t – at least yet – think they would ever need their services.

A few years ago, Jersey Finance – the promotional agency for the financial services sector in the island – mounted what I thought was an effective campaign to illustrate IFCs’ roles in global capital markets, benefiting places such as London and the wider economy. That stuck in my mind as a particularly clear-cut case of taking on certain mistaken assumptions and making the case, boldly and cheerfully. It would be good to see a lot more of this.

Above all, the wealth sector could make healthy ambition become feasible again by pointing to success stories, both of their own clients and from their own ranks.

I realise that there is probably only so much that the sector thinks it can do – at least in the near term. With certain areas, such as trying to minimise the tax hit to clients, professionals may want to avoid putting their heads above the political parapet. That’s understandable. But I think there is a lot that can be done to at least shift the terms of debate from where they are now. What seems clear to me is that doing nothing is not an option.