PRINCE: Why iPad could save investment firms money

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

voices-prince-douglasWhen I walked into the conference room last month, my clients thought they knew what was coming. This was a quarterly update meeting for their firm’s retirement plan, so they expected thick stacks of paper reports and a lot of time flipping through pages.

When I handed each of them an Apple iPad tablet computer instead of paper, they got quiet. As I helped them open files and fill in passwords, they began to chatter enthusiastically. In no time, we were down to business, gliding from page to page, quickly accessing information that formerly would have required time spent leafing through papers.

Maybe it would make me seem more virtuous if I could say I was compelled to adopt this high-tech alternative by a deep-seated concern for the environment, but my initial motives were driven by efficiency and cost control. While it’s hard at this point to pin down total cost savings, if we look at paper costs alone, I would estimate savings of $3,000 to $5,000 per year.

As a small business, we’re continually striving to improve our services while maintaining or reducing our client fees, and technology has done a lot to help us accomplish this goal. Still, I am acutely aware that my industry is incredibly paper-intensive, and I can’t ignore the environmental impact we make with our endless printing of reports.

This isn’t my firm’s first effort to reduce paper use. A few years ago, we quit printing copies of reports during the first few stages of creation and during the review process, opting instead to complete these tasks on the computer screen. More recently, we gave each of our employees a second computer screen so they could work more proficiently with more than one document without printing.

A few of our clients launched their own “go-green” campaign by requesting that they receive our reports by e-mail before quarterly meetings, so they could then review the content on their individual, employer-provided laptops. Other clients had similar requests for advanced electronic delivery in preparation for more group-oriented meetings in which reports are projected on a screen or whiteboard.

Our paper-saving campaign found new energy after I learned at a conference about a California firm that was using iPads for client reports. Impressed, I came back to Indianapolis and bought six iPads and told my team we were replacing paper reports.

Of course, making the shift to paperless meetings wasn’t simple. Even as easy as the iPad is to use, we still experienced a learning curve, and we struggled with the usual Mac-PC issues. We had to find the right software and, because we’re dealing with clients’ financial information, we had to make sure all data was absolutely secure.

Through our learning process, we were able to identify the key benefits of embracing the iPad:

• Reduced environmental impact. In the financial services industry, everything has to be documented, reviewed, communicated and reported, often to various people. The iPad promises to be a major leap forward in paper reduction, saving an estimated 500,000 sheets of paper each year—and urging us to find other ways to conserve. For example, I’m switching to reading The Wall Street Journal and other publications online, a process that could eliminate the equivalent of a 6- or 7-inch stack of newspapers each week.

• Increased efficiency. Obviously, it’s a lot more efficient to run your finger along an iPad screen to find information than to thumb through stacks of paper, and using the computers eliminates a lot of clutter. We can also record meeting notes in a more timely fashion.

• Cost reduction. The iPad isn’t cheap, but the cost savings go well beyond the investment, and it continues to show up in a variety of places. For example, we’ve reduced newspaper costs as well as the costs associated with repeated printing, binding, shredding and filing.

• Quicker access to information. With the iPad, I can have immediate access to any information that’s available on the Internet, as well as anything that can be quickly sent or found via the Web.

• Reduced stress on the body. When we were carrying paper to every meeting, our decisions about what to bring along often was dictated by how much we were willing to carry. With the iPad, I can bring volumes of information with no extra effort.

It didn’t take long for me to see how these benefits manifested in that first client meeting with the iPad. I had worried that the clients might not understand the iPad, or might resist this approach—after all, change is difficult. But they grasped it quickly, enjoying the chance to control what they looked at, vary type size and scan information quickly. And they certainly seemed supportive when I explained the “green” impact the iPads would have.

Still, I do have to admit that, in one way, the iPad did inhibit efficiency slightly. More than once, I had to pause when one of our clients looked up and asked, “Can we keep these things?”•


Prince is managing director of The Prince Group at Stifel Nicolaus & Co Inc. Views expressed here are the writer’s.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. So, Pence wants the federal government to ignore the 2008 law that allows children from these countries to argue for asylum in front of a judge. How did this guy become governor? And how is that we'll soon be subjected to repeatedly seeing him on TV being taken seriously as a presidential candidate? Am I in Bizzaro-U.S.A.?

  2. "And the most rigorous studies of one-year preschool programs have shown short-term benefits that fade out in a few years or no benefits at all." So we are going down a path that seems to have proven not to work very well. Right intention, wrong approach?

  3. Well for Dunkin Donuts it might say that even a highly popular outlet can't make a poorly sited location work. That little strip has seen near constant churn for years.

  4. Years ago, the Pharmaceutical and Medical Device companies shifted their research investment away from Medical Institutions to focus more on private research centers, primarily because of medical institution inefficiencies in initiating clinical studies and their inability/commitment to enroll the needed number of patients in these studies. The protracted timelines of the medical institutions were prompting significant delays in the availability of new drug and medical device entities for patients and relatedly, higher R and D expenditures to the commercial industry because of these delays. While the above stated IU Health "ratio is about $2.50 in federal funding for every $1 in industry funding", the available funding is REVERSED as commercial R and D (primarily Phase I-IV clinical work)runs $2.50 to $1 for available federal funding ($76.8B to $30.9B in 2011). The above article significatly understated the available R and D funding from industry......see the Pharma and Medical Device industry websites. Clearly, if medical institutions like IU Health wish to attract more commercial studies, they will need to become more competitive with private clinical sites in their ability to be more efficient and in their commitment to meet study enrollment goals on time. Lastly, to the reference to the above Washington Post article headlined “As drug industry’s influence over research grows, so does the potential for bias", lacks some credibility as both FDA and Institutional Institutional Review Boards must approve the high proportion of these studies before studies are started. This means that both study safety and science must be approved by both entities.

  5. ChIeF and all the other critics – better is better no matter what. Get over it; they are doing better despite you ?