LiF Extra – Boudewijn Chalmers
Voice-over: This is Leaders in Finance, a podcast where we find out more about the people behind a successful career. We speak with the leaders of today and tomorrow to discuss their motivations, their organizations, and their personal lives. Why? Because the financial sector could use a little more honest conversation. We’d like to thank our partners for their ongoing support. They are Kayak, EY, MeDirect, and Roland Berger.
Your host is Jeroen Broekema.
Jeroen: Welcome, listeners, to an extra episode of Leaders in Finance. I’m very glad you’re listening to this extra episode. Today, we’re discussing EY’s 2025 Global Wealth Research Report, which recently came out. I’m very happy that Boudewijn Chalmers, Partner at EY, is joining me. He’s one of the authors of the report and one of the researchers—quote unquote. Thanks for joining us, Boudewijn.
Boudewijn: Yeah, thank you, Jeroen. Very happy to be here. And I’m glad to be back on the podcast. You’re one of my favorite hosts, apparently, because I’ve been here a couple of times now. Actually, two years ago we spoke about the same report, since it comes out biannually. So, great to be here again.
Boudewijn: It’s an important report for us, and it’s really nice to be able to share some of the key insights with you again. I hope everyone enjoys it.
Jeroen: So let’s dive into it right away. But before we do, a few words about you—for listeners who haven’t heard you before on the podcast. Could you tell me a little bit about your background, and also where your focus lies within EY?
Boudewijn: Yeah, I’m a Partner at EY, part of the consulting practice here in the Netherlands. I lead the wealth and asset management consulting team, with a specific focus on servicing clients in the private banking, wealth management, asset management, and pension sectors. I’ve been doing that for quite a few years now here in the Netherlands. Before that, I spent seven years in Australia. So, all in all, I’ve been active in advising the wealth and asset management industry across multiple countries for about 18 years. My specific focus is really on changing and transforming the way our clients serve their clients, with a strong emphasis on the end customer.
Jeroen: And then on the report—could you first tell me how it was conducted? Is it Dutch, is it global? How many people took part? How does it work? How did you actually gather the data you’re presenting here?
Boudewijn: The data is based on a survey among around 3,600 wealthy individuals globally. It was conducted across 30 countries, including the Netherlands. So it’s really nice to have insights into the Dutch market as well—and we notice our clients really appreciate that, of course. We draw comparisons across countries, across regions, but also across different wealth segments and generations. And I think those particular nuances are quite interesting, because there are absolutely clear differences between what a millennial prefers and what a boomer—or “baby boomer,” as the survey calls it—is looking for.
Jeroen: So about the 30 countries — what kind of countries are we talking about?
Boudewijn: Yeah, it’s practically a mix of everything. So you’ve got the usual big wealth countries like the US, Japan, and China, but also a broad representation across Europe: Germany, France, Italy, the UK, the Netherlands, Luxembourg. So it’s quite an even distribution across the world. And yeah, you always want more countries, but I think—
Jeroen: Also emerging? Like more emerging economies? I mean, you mentioned China — I wouldn’t call that emerging anymore — but maybe countries in Africa or South America?
Boudewijn: Yeah, we’ve got those countries quite clearly covered as well. So it’s a fairly balanced distribution. And what I wanted to say is — you always want more countries, right? The more countries you can cover, the better the distribution and the comparisons you can draw. But I’d say that with 30 countries, we do have a pretty good overview.
Jeroen: Maybe two very practical questions. I don’t know if you know them by heart, but how does it work in practice? How do you find 3,600 wealthy — or super wealthy — people?
Boudewijn: Yeah, it’s a great question, and one I’ve been asked before. When conducting this kind of research, we work with a research agency that’s able to access client bases — or rather, client samples — in the different countries where the survey takes place. And in a way, it’s not unique. There are lots of research reports done across various topics, also in consumer markets. So yes, you can get access to people who are willing to take part and share their views on what matters to them.
Jeroen: Yeah. How long does it take to fill out the survey?
Boudewijn: Well, it’s quite a lengthy survey — which, in a way, is a good thing, because it allows you to go deep into what really matters to the end clients, and therefore also to us in terms of the information and insights we get from the research. But yeah, it’s a long one. At the same time, you always want more questions asked. Every time I present the results, I find myself thinking: okay, next time, we have to include this question too. So yeah, there’s always more you’d like to get out of it. But it’s so valuable to hear directly from high net worth individuals. And that’s something we really notice in the conversations with our clients. When we share the findings, people are genuinely engaged, because these are first-hand insights into what their clients actually care about. That really helps.
Jeroen: So you make a distinction by age — you already mentioned terms like boomers, millennials, the usual categories — and also by wealth levels. Could you say a bit more about both?
Boudewijn: Yeah, so when starting with the wealth segments, we begin by looking at clients we call the “affluent” — those with 250K in US dollars in investable assets. That then grows or develops into the high net worth, the very high net worth, and the ultra high net worth. The ultra high net worth starts at 30 million plus. I think it’s mainly just to show distinctions in the results across these different groups. Every organization uses slightly different thresholds, but it’s more about being able to draw comparisons.
And with age, we’re looking at millennials, Gen X, and the baby boomers. I know not everyone likes the term “baby boomers,” but that’s the term chosen for the report.
Jeroen: Right. So you use the term “investable assets.” If you look at the Netherlands, for example, a lot of people are millionaires here because of the homes they live in. That’s not part of this, right? It’s really pretty much cash — quote unquote. I mean, it could be anything that’s investable, but not the stuff you live in and own.
Boudewijn: No, exactly — exactly that. So it’s not your house, because that would increase the number of millionaires in the Netherlands as well, particularly these days.
Jeroen: Yeah, that makes sense to me. And you kind of already alluded to it, but just to be sure: what’s the main reason you’re doing this survey? Is it for your own insights? Is it because your customers like it? Or other reasons?
Boudewijn: Well, I’d be lying if I said I don’t enjoy it myself — I’m just quite passionate about it. And that’s something people pick up on when we’re discussing these kinds of insights. I really like talking about real client insights.
For the organization, there’s definitely a lot of value in doing this kind of research, because it gives us something quite specific and unique to engage our clients with. That’s also why I’m personally so invested in it — it allows me to go much deeper in the conversations we’re having. And ultimately, it gets clients thinking.
The report has now been out for about a month. What I’ve seen in the presentations we’ve done is that real actions are already being taken based on it. I was speaking with one of my clients — I’d presented the research to them two or three weeks earlier — and they could already tell me that one or two things we discussed are now being implemented. For me, there’s no better proof of the value of this kind of research.
Jeroen: Do you have any idea how all these people — I mean, in my words, they’re rich, you’d call them wealthy — how they actually became rich? Do you have any idea?
Boudewijn: Well, the research itself is not really focused on how these people are becoming rich. But we do have insights on specific client respondents — people with an entrepreneurial background, or people with a certain inheritance, or, you know, whatever type of possibility there is. So we do have that data. I would say, from an insights perspective, I really focus on the wealth distribution splits and the generational splits. For me, those are the more exciting insights — where it really jumps out. But we do have the raw underlying data that allows us to look into the entrepreneurial client base, et cetera.
Jeroen: Given that you speak literally every day with clients — and by clients, I mean financial institutions and the like — you already have a lot of insights. You’ve got a lot of anecdotes and so on. And here it’s a bit more structured, of course. But what I’d like to ask is: you’re probably not too surprised by most of the findings. However, was there something that, you know, actually did surprise you when you saw the results?
Boudewijn: Yeah, I think there are always a couple of topics that surprise you. And yes, there are also some open doors — things that more or less confirm what we already knew, which isn’t a bad thing, by the way. So for me, because we’re looking at quite a few different topics in the research — ranging from client sentiment, client behaviour, product and solution preferences, to the topic of wealth transfer and AI — those are the key themes we’ve been looking at. And while the topic of wealth transfer is being discussed quite actively, the thing that really jumped out to me was that the inheritors, or upcoming inheritors, seemed quite loyal to the advisor of the grantors — likely being their parents.
83% of the Dutch respondents indicated that they plan to stay with the advisor of their mom or dad up until the moment of receiving the inheritance. And for a long time, I think many of us assumed that a different generation, with different expectations, would look for a different type of advisor — and that they would switch. So for me, that really stood out. That was probably the most striking one.
Also because — wait, wasn’t it different from the global number?
No, no, the global number on this particular point is quite similar. So there’s a nuance there. But I do think the advisor shouldn’t — how do you say it — count themselves too rich, if I can use the Dutch expression. What psychology generally shows is that people don’t change substantially in anything they’re doing when something significant is about to happen. So we really see that the opportunity for actual switching between advisors might come after — in the two years following the transition.
That actual moment of wealth transfer is very important — and really an opportunity to stand out as the right advisor. So, yeah, it’s no guarantee for success, but this was the number that stood out for me.
Jeroen: Is there another, really overarching result that you’d like to present? I mean, after that, I’d like to dive into a couple of more specific things — but is there an overarching trend that you recognize from the report?
Boudewijn: I think one of the key things we’ve seen in the report is that the focus on family matters — the actual topic of wealth transfer — is coming through in many different parts of the research as a topic of concern, and as one of the highest priorities for clients when talking with their advisors. So it really speaks to a more, yeah, I use the term holistic — not everyone likes it — but a more holistic approach to the overall client relationship. And I think if I take that back, say 10 or 15 years, most of the focus of these types of research would be on product, wealth, growth, and product development. And I think products have increasingly become more of a hygiene factor — just an expectation that the investment products do what they’re supposed to do. But really, where you add value as a wealth management organization is by focusing on the client — and the investment products or performance are really just the enabler to help guide them on their journey.
Jeroen: Yeah, that sounds — makes sense to me. What I find really interesting is that about a third of the customers — although they’re generally really happy and client satisfaction with their financial institutions is pretty high — about a third still finds financial planning confusing and complex. I mean, that’s a lot. That’s a lot of people. And that means there’s a lot of work to do, I would say.
Boudewijn: Yeah, no, absolutely. And I think this is part of something I would see as a bit broader. I think the perceived complexity that wealthy clients experience is quite high. And what the research also shows is that the top six factors contributing to this complexity are things they can’t control — geopolitical developments, macroeconomic factors, interest rates. An individual can’t influence those, but they do impact them. Also, the introduction of new types of products contributes to that. So as a client…
Jeroen: What does that mean, actually?
Boudewijn: Yeah — so, the introduction of cryptos, digital assets, but also alternatives. Most people don’t really understand what these types of products are, but they hear it’s exciting and that it’s something they should be looking into. So all these factors they can’t control, combined with all this new information they’re trying to process, create an environment that feels overwhelming.
And while their personal situation might not necessarily have become more complex, they perceive it that way. And that’s where the advisor becomes important. Financial planning — especially forward-looking planning — is affected by all of this.
Also in the context of a topic like wealth transfer or intergenerational wealth transfer, you have to look at your planning more broadly. I’d say there are many factors contributing to that perception of not feeling sufficiently prepared for the financial future — which is quite interesting when we’re talking about wealthy individuals or financial planning in general. It’s not a single factor. It’s really a broader picture.
Jeroen: That’s really interesting, because what you’re basically saying is that the world outside is insecure, even scary at the moment — and I could only agree with that. And at the same time, you have all these new products coming in, which is overwhelming. So I would argue this makes the role of the financial advisor — or planner, or whatever you call them — even more important: to calm everyone down, to bring structure, and to say, “Hey, these are your goals in life. Yes, all this is happening out there, but let’s focus on your situation.” So it asks for an even more empathetic… empathetic is the word in English, I guess… kind of way of working with the client.
Boudewijn: 100% agree. And people who say advisors are no longer needed — I’d say they’re completely wrong. It’s quite clear that advisors still have a fundamental role to play. Yes, they have to evolve. Yes, they need to adopt AI to become even more meaningful — to generate or leverage more insights that AI can proactively provide. But that role is fundamentally important.
And one thing to add is that the research from two years ago was also quite specific on this point, particularly for the millennial generation. Two-thirds of millennial respondents at the time already indicated that they needed more advice. So that’s also guidance — not in the MiFID II definition, but broader support from an advisor on everything related to financial products, like banking and insurance, planning, investments, and more specialized services. So yes, the advisor is absolutely needed.
Jeroen: That’s a great segue into my next topic, which I find by far the hardest — which is tech versus people, to put it broadly. And I’m always confused. When I speak to the leadership of banks or other financial institutions, wealth managers, etc., I always wonder: do people actually want more personal contact? Probably yes. Do they want more tech? Probably also yes. But does it work both at the same time — or not?
Boudewijn: It seems like they want everything. That’s practically what you’re saying. So ultimately, it’s about striking the right balance. I think that’s an important element. And again, there are generational differences. You see, for example, the millennial generation clearly indicating that sufficient digital technological tools—yeah, they see that as hygiene. So it could be a reason for them to switch providers if their expectations aren’t sufficiently met.
But the financial questions many are asking are quite complex. So is a fully digitally delivered solution enough? I’d say probably not in many instances, because they want that peace of mind. I think when you’re looking for a mortgage, even people with a proper financial background like that extra peace of mind, right? Like, “Is this indeed what’s right for me? Can you confirm that I’ve looked at this case the right way?”
So I think there’s continuously that opportunity—or sorry, the need—for that sounding board in the form of an advisor when it comes to complex financial decisions. And at the same time, yes, people are doing more themselves. They have access to so much more information, so they’re better self-informed. They like to play around with certain things. They want to do crypto—although their private banker might not necessarily agree with that—so they’re going to try that themselves.
So yes, there’s definitely more involvement and a bit more self-control, if that’s the right way of putting it. But still, it’s about finding the right balance. And yeah, that’s not easy for financial institutions—making the trade-off about where you invest. That’s for sure.
Voice-over: This is Leaders in Finance with Jeroen Broekema.
Jeroen: Let’s throw in one more element. So far, we’ve looked at things more from the customer’s perspective. But if you flip that and consider it from the perspective of a financial institution—especially larger private banks or universal banks—it’s also about cost, right?
Can you actually serve millions of customers in a personal way? Probably not. But when you talk about striking the right balance, what does that balance look like here? Because I imagine cost is a big factor in deciding whether you lean more toward a tech-driven model or stick to a more personal approach.
Boudewijn: Yeah, there are a couple of points I’d want to touch on there. First of all, all wealth managers are looking for scalable growth—or profitable growth, in some way. So keeping costs at the same level while increasing profitability and growing the share of wallet with clients. I think there’s no one who isn’t trying to do that.
But it’s not always directly tied to the end client. So they’re really looking at new types of technology and tools to streamline internal operations. And again, AI—especially everything around generative AI—is going to be a game-changer in that space. You can optimize a lot internally.
At the same time, there’s a lot of added value that comes from the insights it can generate, from the prompts it can deliver. And there are already quite a few players in the Netherlands who are actively working on this. “Looking at it” doesn’t really do them justice—they’re really implementing it already.
So there’s a lot possible, but again, it’s about finding that balance. And yes, you want to scale what you offer—absolutely. But that advisor is still key in making that possible.
Jeroen: And the more wealthy you are, the more important personal advice becomes—or is that not necessarily true?
Boudewijn: You would think so, but coming back to my earlier points about the need for advice, I typically also see younger clients and the mass affluent group indicating a very clear need for a touchpoint with advisors. And yes, financial matters do become more complex the wealthier you are. But that doesn’t mean the affluent don’t need an advisor — that peace of mind is still important. And again, that makes it quite difficult, right? So for the affluent, you often see more of a hybrid model, where digital is probably a bit more dominant, but you always need to provide the opportunity to soundboard with an advisor — even in a virtual setting — because they’re extremely comfortable doing it that way.
Jeroen: Are people in the Netherlands willing to pay for it? The wealthy people in the survey?
Boudewijn: Well, the survey shows that people are quite willing to pay for advice and that they’re actually quite comfortable with the price point that’s being used. So I think that’s an important takeaway. So yes, I would say they are — but again, it’s about striking the right balance. If you’ve received certain services for free for years and now suddenly have to start paying for them, yeah, that always leads to some kind of discussion or people asking, “Why is that?” But in essence, people do seem quite comfortable paying for it.
Jeroen: And are you talking about paying literally — almost like consulting — where you pay by the hour? Or is it more that people don’t want to pay directly, but they do because their money is there and they earn interest, for example?
Boudewijn: That’s a good question, and the report also touches on this. What you’re seeing more and more is that clients value predictability. So there’s a bit of a shift towards, let’s call it, fixed-fee pricing preferences. I’m not saying that’s currently the standard, but it’s clearly what people like — predictability. And I think that’s something to really keep in mind when deciding how to charge clients for the services you offer. I’d expect to see quite a bit of evolution in the coming years around how private banking services are priced.
Jeroen: Because currently this isn’t — yeah, “consulting” might not be the right word — but it’s not an hourly fee yet with major banks, right?
Boudewijn: No, no, not yet.
Jeroen: Are some experimenting with it?
Boudewijn: Yes, people have looked at it, and of course they’re also evaluating it from a business case perspective — which makes sense. Another topic that consistently comes up in our research, which we conduct every two years, is a certain appetite for performance-based pricing. So, where a client pays a bit more when there’s outperformance, and less when there’s underperformance. However, our own assessments — also in other markets — have shown that clients are often willing to pay for outperformance when the market is going up, but they’re not extremely keen to pay more when the market is going down. Even if you outperform the benchmark. So maybe you’ve outperformed, but your portfolio is still down 5% — then clients really struggle with the idea of paying more. And in a way, these models only work if you apply them both ways.
Jeroen: Alternative investments. Before I ask my question — what are alternative investments in your view?
Boudewijn: Yes. So in the research — and of course we cover a broad range of topics, so we can’t go extremely deep on everything — alternative investments here include things like private equity, real estate, hedge funds, venture capital, and crypto. It’s quite broad. So basically everything that isn’t a standard investment product. That’s how it’s been approached in the report. And we definitely see a strong appetite for alternatives — both in terms of what our clients are interested in and how providers are trying to bring those products to market. Because yes, the potential upside is definitely there.
Jeroen: So apparently, based on your report, approximately half of the customers — or the individuals surveyed — discuss alternatives with their advisor. Is that because they don’t ask about it? Is it that the advisor doesn’t feel comfortable enough to talk about it? Or is there another factor at play here?
Boudewijn: Yeah. So I think what the research indicates is that topics like alternative investments — and a few others — tend not to be discussed too regularly or proactively by advisors with their clients. While clients actually seem quite interested in doing so, which clearly indicates an opportunity, right? If you’re not discussing topics your clients might be interested in, then you’re clearly missing out. It also comes down to the type of conversations you’re having with your clients.
Jeroen: But is it because of a lack of knowledge, that they don’t feel comfortable? Or — I’m just suggesting two things — could it be that they’re simply not offering it? Let’s say you’re a universal bank and you don’t offer crypto or private equity, for example.
Boudewijn: I’d say it’s partly both. I’m not saying advisors aren’t keen to discuss it — many actually are. But we also clearly saw that not every client is being approached to discuss these topics, and not every provider offers them. So the commercial incentive to bring them up might not really be there. But that’s not something this particular research focused on in depth. It’s more a matter of asking the end client: is this a topic you’ve discussed, yes or no? More generally, if you look at the market — also in the Netherlands — it’s clear that players are moving on this. Wealth managers and banks are really working on it. Some have already developed full platforms to offer private market or alternative investment products, and they’re doing quite well with that. Others are still in the exploratory phase.
Jeroen: You already touched on wealth transfer. And I’d like to add — everyone in this space knows, of course — that there’s an enormous amount of wealth set to move to the next generation over the next 10 to 20 years. It’s huge. It’s never been this significant. What I found both concerning and interesting in your report is that a majority of the people set to inherit that wealth — the inheritors, as you mentioned earlier — feel insufficiently prepared. That’s a huge number. If over 50% don’t feel ready, that’s worrying, right?
Boudewijn: Yeah, absolutely. It clearly indicates an opportunity, right? As an advisor, just to support your clients on their journey and to be proactive in discussing this topic. It’s a clear sign that people see this as something complex or difficult they’re going to face. And I think it’s both the grantor and the inheritor who don’t necessarily feel prepared for it—the person giving it, so to speak. So yes, this is definitely a key topic to address and a clear opportunity.
When it comes to wealth transfer, I think it’s also important to take a broader view. In many of the discussions we’re having, the focus is on wealth being passed to the next generation. But we shouldn’t forget that, in many cases, wealth is first transferred to the partner before it moves to the next generation. Women typically live longer, so they often end up owning a significant share of that wealth. That’s also why there’s a clear expectation that female-held wealth will rise significantly in the coming years. And again, that’s an important point for advisors to keep in mind during this transition—because women also tend to have different expectations. So there are several layers to this. Wealth transfer isn’t just about inheritance going to the next generation; it’s a more complex issue—both for individuals and for wealth management institutions. And I think that’s an important point to consider.
Jeroen: A lot of things relate to AI, and we could easily record two or five more podcasts on that. But let me ask you one specific thing, since you have the privilege of seeing many financial institutions from the inside. Do you get the sense that there’s already a big gap between private banks and other institutions in terms of using AI?
Boudewijn: I’d say, let’s start with what the research clearly shows: around 60% of respondents expect their wealth manager to be using AI. So the majority expects AI to be part of the service, which makes it a no-brainer—wealth managers need to act on this. At the same time, the report also shows that a purely AI-generated outcome isn’t well accepted yet. So again, the advisor’s role remains very important, especially from an educational perspective.
What we also see is that millennials are significantly more comfortable with AI than the boomer generation, which makes sense. Those generational differences are important to keep in mind.
If you look at the organizations that are actually implementing AI, they’re often not branding it externally yet. But behind the scenes, many firms are actively working on it. Some are even restructuring their data and tech teams to be AI-driven. They’re starting to see the benefits. For example, at EY we use our own internal ChatGPT tool—internally we call ourselves ‘client zero’—and around 400,000 people globally are using it. You also see this happening within certain organizations in the Netherlands.
Still, there’s so much more potential. And what surprises me is that in many organizations, the overall AI literacy is still relatively low. What I mean is that people often don’t fully understand the actual opportunities AI can offer.
We’ve known for years that AI can support an advisor during a live virtual meeting—by picking up on client sentiment or suggesting relevant products or services based on what’s being said. Yet, when we shared this in a recent client session, about half the room was surprised this kind of tech already existed. And the reality is—it’s been around for four or five years at least.
So yes, there’s still a lot of internal education needed. But AI will absolutely play a key role—not just for efficiency, but also in adding value. In the end, the advisors who learn how to use it to enhance their client relationships are the ones who will succeed.
Jeroen: Again, striking the right balance. It’s a big theme here. Maybe the last topic from my side is around universal banks versus more specialized private banks. What does the report mean for universal banks? What are some of the strategic choices here? And the same question for more specialized private banks.
Boudewijn: Yeah, I think what the research indicates, first of all, is that clients are really looking for more specialized and personalized services. That theme runs through the entire report. And also when it comes to topics around family matters, it ties back to my earlier point — so that’s very important.
Then the research also looks at the types of providers clients are using: universal banks, private banks, family offices, fintech providers, crypto providers — a really broad range. What we’re seeing is that, although not with huge percentages, there’s been a consistent declining trend over the past, say, six years in the number of clients who use a universal bank for private banking. At the same time, there’s been a consistent increase — more clearly at family offices — but also at specialized private banks. That growth is strongly driven by their focus on truly personalized services, real personal connection with clients, and the specialized services they offer, as opposed to the more standardized approach often seen at universal banks.
We see the same trend at the global level. So for universal banks, it becomes really important to ask: how are we positioning our private bank within the larger organization? How do we differentiate? What’s the brand? What do we really want to offer?
And that’s actually quite broad, because the personal side is crucial. Digital capabilities are essential too, but the question is: how do you deliver those in a personalized way, instead of defaulting to a standardized model? Many clients experience digitization as a push toward standardization — and that makes them feel less personally serviced.
Yes, there’s a real opportunity — and a need — to develop scalable models. That’s definitely the case. But I think there’s also a big opportunity for universal banks. They have much larger organizations behind them. And if they can tap into capabilities from across the group — say, from business banking, wholesale units, or financial markets — they can bring together something unique in how they serve clients. That’s something many pure-play private banks, while strong in their own right, often don’t have access to.
So I do see opportunities for the larger banks in the Netherlands as well. But it’s not easy. If it were easy, they would’ve done it already, right? Still, there’s definitely a role for them to play. If that’s the underlying question — no, there’s no reason to pull out of this market. But what the research clearly shows is that a push toward standardization is absolutely not the way to go.
Jeroen: Let’s drop a statement here and see how you respond to it. How do you feel about this: scale the human touch. Is that ultimately what you want to do?
Boudewijn: Scale the human touch — I think it touches on quite a few key topics, which I really like. Ultimately, it’s about the human side — or better said, the perceived personalized service for clients. That’s probably where it’s headed. QPS — new term. Yeah. I hope it doesn’t mean something bad in another industry! But really, it’s about how the client perceives it, right?
If a client feels like something is personal, even if the underlying product or service is relatively standard, then you’ve done something right. On one hand, your organization gains scale and scalability. On the other, the client feels seen — like, okay, I’m being served in a way that’s specific to me. That’s where the opportunity lies.
But in the end, it all comes down to how the client experiences it. If the client doesn’t feel personally treated or valued by the organization, then you’re going to miss out — really miss out.
Jeroen: I love traditions myself, so I really like that we’ve now done this for the second time, biannually. I hope you’ll be willing to come back in two years and join me again for another report, to see how this whole market is developing. I really enjoy your enthusiasm for the topic — and I’m sure we could have spoken for another few hours, because you’re clearly very passionate about it. As I said, I really enjoy that. And I know you give presentations everywhere and have discussions with people who really know a lot about this field. So thank you so much. Boudewijn Chalmers is a Partner at EY, specifically focused on wealth management. Thank you again for taking the time.
Boudewijn: Yeah, it’s my pleasure — and I’d absolutely be happy to come back in two years. It’s a great podcast, and I really enjoy the discussions we’re having. Thank you. Thank you.
Voice-over: You’ve been listening to Leaders in Finance. We hope you’ve enjoyed the episode and would love to hear from you. What’s on your mind? Who would you like to hear next? Let us know in a review, an email, or get in touch via our social channels — we’d greatly appreciate it.
Finally, we’d like to thank our partners for their ongoing support. They are Kayak, EY, MeDirect, and Roland Berger. Don’t forget to check out all the other things we do at leadersinfinance.nl. Thank you for listening.