"Ill-conceived offshoring is helping to destroy this bank"
I work for one of the big US banks, but it's never been in the same league as JPMorgan or Goldman Sachs. At best, it was a middle-of-the-pack player, comparable to Santander in Spain or Wells Fargo in the U.S. Its strength lay in its unmatched global footprint, which made it difficult for clients to replace. For years, it marketed this ubiquity as its advantage.
But that brand promise has unravelled. Misguided decisions, poor restructuring, unclear leadership, and an opaque support infrastructure have created an environment defined by low morale, excessive bureaucracy, high attrition, and outright dysfunction. Many of the best people have already left; and those who remain are eager to follow.
A recent personal experience highlights the decay. I interviewed for an internal role, only for the hiring manager to admit that the position was soon to be outsourced. He even suggested I withdraw, candidly admitting the role was a crap job. He was required to post it, but there was no real future in it.
Once a formidable franchise, the bank has been hollowed out by two structural failures:
1. An investment-banking-led model. It's deprioritized traditional corporate banking staples like loans and credit lines unless they're linked to lucrative M&A or IPO mandates. Clients seeking balance sheet support often find the bank unwilling or unable to deliver.
2. Excessive outsourcing and offshoring. In 2021, the bank centralized and outsourced much of its execution. The result was predictable: an impersonal, inefficient, and demoralized operation that functions more like a scattered middle office than a client-centric bank. Junior bankers were meant to focus on origination, yet their roles blurred into execution, with little clarity on career paths.
The situation worsened when we began offshoring first line of defense responsibilities to India. These roles require deep transactional knowledge and client engagement; yet they were handed to teams historically functioning as back- or middle-office support. London bankers were forced to train their replacements, while watching large chunks of their portfolios shifted offshore. The outcome is an upside-down hierarchy: seasoned client-facing bankers now find themselves taking orders from reviewers with limited technical competence, no client experience, and little accountability.
To make matters worse, many of these offshore teams were rapidly bulk-promoted to levels that in London would require rigorous selection. Career progression became detached from merit, leaving experienced bankers sidelined while less-qualified managers thrived in the shadows. The result is widespread attrition, as talent flees a system that rewards bureaucracy over skill and client impact.
This isn't just a morale issue. The offshore-driven model is already undermining return. A corporate bank that once prided itself on global strength now feels like a hollow shell, operating for the convenience of internal structures rather than the needs of clients.
The bank needs to rethink its model. Otherwise, it risks becoming a case study in how to dismantle a once-credible franchise; sacrificing people, clients, and performance to an obsession with offshoring.
Fara Thuriya is a pseudonym
Have a confidential story, tip, or comment you’d like to share? Contact: +44 7537 182250 (SMS, Whatsapp or voicemail). Telegram: @SarahButcher. Signal: sarahbutcher.22 Click here to fill in our anonymous form, or email editortips@efinancialcareers.com.
Bear with us if you leave a comment at the bottom of this article: comments are moderated intermittently by human beings. Sometimes these humans might be asleep, or away from their desks, so it may take a while for your comment to appear. You must take sole responsibility for comments you post on this site. We will take reasonable steps to weed out anything that we consider to be offensive or inappropriate.
