The Trillion-Dollar Blind Spot: Why Banks Are Still Betting on Bricks While the Future Is Built on Code
The Trillion-Dollar Blind Spot: Why Banks Are Still Betting on Bricks While the Future Is Built on Code
In our modern economy, value is no longer solely forged in factories or stored in warehouses. It’s written in lines of code, designed in creative studios, and built through brand reputation. Companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft dominate the stock market not because of their physical factories, but because of their vast portfolios of intellectual property, software, and data. Yet, if one of these tech giants’ most brilliant offshoots—a promising software startup—were to walk into a traditional bank for a loan, it would likely face a perplexing reality. The bank would ask not about its innovative algorithm or its rapidly growing user base, but about its physical assets: buildings, equipment, inventory. This is the great paradox of modern finance.
A recent letter to the Financial Times by Martin Brassell, CEO of Inngot, crystallizes this issue perfectly. He points out the deep-seated bias in the banking sector that continues to favor tangible, “bricks and mortar” assets over the intangible assets that truly drive today’s economy. This isn’t just an academic debate; it’s a critical bottleneck that stifles innovation, slows economic growth, and leaves trillions of dollars in value unrecognized and underleveraged. Why does this financial myopia persist, and what will it take to build a banking system that can see, value, and finance the future?
From Industrial Revolution to Digital Revolution: The Evolution of Value
To understand why banking is stuck in the past, we must first appreciate its origins. The modern banking system was forged in the crucible of the Industrial Revolution. During this era, wealth was tangible and visible. A company’s value was directly tied to its factories, machinery, and land. When a business sought a loan, the banker’s risk assessment was straightforward: if the loan defaulted, the physical assets could be seized and sold to recoup the losses. This model, built on the bedrock of physical collateral, was logical, prudent, and effective for centuries.
However, the global economy has undergone a seismic shift. We have transitioned from an industrial economy to a knowledge economy. Today, intangible assets—such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, brand value, and proprietary software—are the primary drivers of corporate worth. According to a 2021 report by Brand Finance, intangible assets now account for a staggering 90% of the value of the S&P 500, a dramatic increase from just 17% in 1975. This represents a fundamental inversion of where value resides.
This table illustrates the stark differences between the two asset classes that traditional banking struggles to reconcile:
| Attribute | Tangible Assets (e.g., Real Estate, Machinery) | Intangible Assets (e.g., Software, Patents, Brand) |
|---|---|---|
| Valuation | Relatively straightforward; based on market comparables, replacement cost, or depreciation schedules. | Complex and context-dependent; based on future income potential, market exclusivity, and strategic value. |
| Liquidity | Generally high. Established markets exist for selling physical assets in case of default. | Highly variable. Can be illiquid and difficult to sell quickly without a significant discount. |
| Depreciation | Depreciates predictably over time due to physical wear and tear. | Can appreciate in value (e.g., a strong brand) or become obsolete overnight (e.g., outdated software). |
| Collateralization | The traditional foundation of secured lending in banking. | Rarely accepted as primary collateral by traditional lenders due to perceived risk and valuation challenges. |
This chasm between how value is created and how it is financed is at the heart of the problem. The financial technology and risk models that underpin the banking industry are still calibrated for an economy that no longer exists in its pure form.
Beyond the Grid: Why Solving the FT Crossword is Your Secret Weapon in Finance
The Banker’s Dilemma: Why Code and Creativity Don’t Compute
It’s easy to criticize banks for being archaic, but their reluctance to embrace intangible assets is rooted in genuine structural and regulatory challenges. Understanding these hurdles is key to finding a solution.
- The Valuation Nightmare: How do you put a precise, defensible number on a piece of proprietary code, a unique business process, or a company’s brand reputation? Unlike a building with a clear market price, the value of an intangible asset is often tied to its potential for future earnings, a metric that is inherently speculative and difficult for traditional credit risk models to process.
- The Liquidation Problem: If a software company defaults on a loan secured by its source code, what is the bank’s recourse? Selling that code on the open market is fraught with difficulty. The value may be specific to that company’s ecosystem, require a highly specialized buyer, or be hard to transfer legally. It’s a far cry from auctioning a foreclosed property.
- Regulatory Restraints: Global banking regulations, such as the Basel Accords, impose strict capital requirements on banks. Loans secured by “non-standard” collateral like intellectual property are often deemed riskier, forcing banks to hold more capital against them. This makes IP-backed loans less profitable and therefore less attractive than a standard mortgage or commercial real estate loan. A study by the UK’s Intellectual Property Office highlighted that this lack of recognition in regulatory frameworks is a major barrier for SMEs seeking finance.
- Expertise Gap: A typical commercial loan officer is trained to analyze financial statements and appraise physical property. They are not equipped to evaluate the strength of a patent portfolio, the defensibility of a software algorithm, or the market power of a brand. This skills gap within banking institutions is a significant operational hurdle.
The Economic Fallout: Stifled Innovation and Missed Opportunities
The inability of the financial system to properly value and lend against intangible assets has far-reaching negative consequences for the entire economy.
- Starving the Engines of Growth: Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), particularly in the tech and creative sectors, are the lifeblood of innovation. These companies are often “asset-light,” with their entire value locked up in IP and human capital. Denied access to traditional debt financing, they are forced to seek venture capital, which often means relinquishing significant equity and control at an early stage. Many viable businesses that could thrive with a simple line of credit are unable to get off the ground.
- Distorting Capital Allocation: When banks overwhelmingly favor lending against real estate, it can contribute to asset bubbles in the property market. Capital that could be funding the next breakthrough in biotechnology or artificial intelligence is instead funneled into property development, a less productive allocation from a national innovation perspective. This creates a systemic bias in the economy towards the physical over the digital.
- Hampering Scale-Ups: The problem isn’t just for startups. Established, innovative companies looking to scale quickly also face this hurdle. A manufacturing firm can get a loan to build a new factory, but a software firm may struggle to get a loan of the same size to fund a massive R&D push or a global marketing campaign, even if the projected ROI is far higher.
Forging a New Financial Framework: The Path Forward
Bridging this gap requires a multi-faceted approach involving innovation in financial technology, regulatory reform, and a shift in corporate mindset. The future of finance must be built on new tools and new thinking.
1. The Rise of Fintech and AI-Powered Valuation: The most promising solutions are emerging from the fintech sector. Specialized lenders are developing sophisticated AI and machine learning models to value intangible assets. These platforms can analyze patent databases, trademark registrations, software code repositories, brand sentiment data, and cash flow projections to arrive at more accurate and dynamic valuations. Companies like Aistemos and others are pioneering this space, providing the tools needed to turn IP into a bankable asset.
2. Blockchain and the Tokenization of IP: Blockchain technology offers a tantalizing possibility for solving the liquidity problem. Intellectual property could be “tokenized,” creating a unique, verifiable digital asset on a blockchain that represents ownership. This could create a transparent and liquid secondary market for trading IP assets, making them more attractive as collateral. Imagine a patent being fractionalized and sold to investors like a stock, providing immediate capital to the innovator.
3. Regulatory and Government Innovation: Policymakers have a crucial role to play. Governments can create or back insurance schemes that protect banks against losses on IP-backed loans, thereby de-risking the proposition. They can also update regulatory frameworks to formally recognize certain classes of intangible assets as high-quality collateral. Initiatives like Singapore’s Intangible Asset-Backed Financing scheme are early examples of governments actively trying to solve this problem.
4. A Corporate Mindset Shift: Finally, business leaders must become better at identifying, managing, and articulating the value of their intangible assets. Companies need to treat their IP portfolio not as a legal formality but as a strategic financial asset that can and should be leveraged for growth. This means conducting regular IP audits and valuations and presenting this data to lenders as a core part of their financial story.
The £70 Billion Question: Inside the Covid Inquiry's Scrutiny of Furlough and Business Loans
Conclusion: Financing the Economy of Tomorrow
The disconnect between the 21st-century knowledge economy and the 20th-century banking system is one of the most significant, yet under-discussed, challenges facing modern capitalism. Martin Brassell’s observation is a stark reminder that our financial infrastructure is lagging dangerously behind our economic reality. Continuing to favor bricks over code is a recipe for stagnation.
The path forward requires a collaborative effort. Banks must invest in new skills and technologies. Fintech innovators must continue to build robust and trustworthy valuation tools. Regulators must create a framework that encourages, rather than penalizes, lending to innovative firms. And entrepreneurs must learn to speak the language of finance when it comes to their most valuable assets. Building this new financial architecture is not just an opportunity for the banking sector; it is an absolute necessity for unleashing the full potential of the global economy.
