In business, the real risk is not failing. It is refusing to think differently while the world moves on. Companies that define competitiveness as cutting costs, define strategy as copying last year’s playbook, and define leadership as avoiding mistakes will not die overnight. They will die slowly — by stagnation. They will keep posting profits, keep raising capital, and keep getting left behind by smaller, bolder rivals who chose to compete for foresight, for competencies, and for the future instead of just for today’s deposits. That is the implication of the old thinking: you become efficient, but irrelevant. You become big, but bloated. You become profitable, but cheap.
FCMB Group is one of the clearest victims of that refusal. A bank founded before many of today’s tier-1 names like Access, GTCO and Stanbic IBTC, and once ranked ahead of them, has watched those same banks overtake it in valuation, relevance and market imagination. Even Wema Bank, once demoted to regional status, has now leapfrogged it. The reason is not lack of resources. It is lack of imagination from the top.
Conceptually, every bank must walk a tightrope between five conflicting demands: give surplus units maximum liquidity, give deficit units cheap and instant credit, deliver shareholders maximum profitability, satisfy regulators’ demand for prudence, and meet the community’s expectation of good corporate citizenship. FCMB has, for two decades, continued to live up to these expectations in textbook fashion — balancing liquidity against returns, staying within regulatory lines, and presenting itself as the responsible, steady challenger. But therein lies the irony: the very discipline that kept it credible has also kept it stuck. While younger banks chose to stretch goals, leverage constraints, and preempt new competitive space with digital-first models, FCMB remained on the treadmill of optimization — refining today’s lending, deposit, and compliance playbook rather than architecting tomorrow’s. In trying to satisfy all five constituencies equally, it optimized the present at the cost of the future, treating strategy as risk management rather than as imagination. The result is that the challenger that once defined ambition has been overtaken by upstarts willing to trade some liquidity and short-term prudence for speed, knowledge, and new competencies. FCMB stayed solvent and respectable, but in banking, respectability without preemption is how incumbents become followers.
FCMB Group’s numbers for FY 2025 and Q1 2026 tell a story of disciplined acceleration, not stagnation. Total assets grew to ₦7.96 trillion by Q1 2026, customer deposits rose to ₦4.68 trillion, and shareholders’ funds jumped 36% to ₦1.14 trillion, supported by a successful capital raise. Profitability was the standout: PAT of ₦177.3 billion in FY 2025 and ₦76.5 billion in Q1 2026 alone reflects the benefit of a diversified model and stronger interest income. Compared to tier-2 peers, FCMB is punching above its historical weight — it is now larger than Wema at ₦1.20 trillion market cap and is closing the gap on Fidelity, which ended Q1 2026 with ₦11.35 trillion in assets and ₦74.5 billion PAT. The 137% YoY PAT surge in Q1 positions FCMB as one of the fastest-growing banks by earnings momentum. In that sense, the bank has satisfied the five constituencies: depositors got liquidity, borrowers got access, shareholders got record returns, regulators got prudence, and the balance sheet got stronger.The Critical Gap: Momentum Without Market LeadershipYet when placed beside the top tier, the structural gap is still stark and explains why the market continues to price FCMB at a deep discount. GTCO ended Q1 2026 with ₦18.75 trillion in assets, ₦13.69 trillion in deposits, and ₦218.13 billion PAT in just three months — nearly 3x FCMB’s quarterly profit. AccessCorp sits at ₦53.44 trillion in assets and ₦216.54 billion Q1 PAT, while Zenith and FirstHoldCo are in the ₦4–18 trillion asset range with PBTs in the hundreds of billions. Even Stanbic IBTC, with a smaller asset base, commands a premium through ROE and fee businesses. FCMB’s ₦2.23 trillion loan book also contracted slightly in Q1, while peers like Access and Fidelity expanded lending aggressively. The critique is conceptual: FCMB has mastered optimization — growing deposits, raising capital, and protecting margins — but it has not yet preempted new competitive space. The big banks are competing for ecosystem dominance, non-bank income, and balance sheet scale. FCMB is competing to do today’s banking better. Until that earnings momentum is converted into scale, digital ecosystem depth, or a clear strategic architecture, FCMB will remain the most profitable “challenger” on the NGX, but still a challenger — respected for execution, yet not priced for leadership.
FCMB on the Valuation Discount: Efficient, But Not Yet LeadingFCMB Group Plc trades at a P/E of just 2.43, the lowest among major NGX banks, and is coming off a standout Q1 2026 where PAT jumped 137% YoY. On paper that signals deep value: cheaper than GTCO at 5.39x, Zenith at 4.49x, Stanbic at 6.52x, FirstHoldCo at ∼12.8x, AccessCorp at 1.77x, and Wema at 4.38x, while still delivering growth that outpaced most peers. The market has rewarded this with a strong YTD recovery and bullish analyst targets implying significant upside. Yet the discount itself is the critique. Banks like Zenith and GTCO command higher multiples despite lower headline growth because they combine scale — Zenith at ₦4.76 trillion market cap, GTCO with resilient fee income — with consistent ROE and dividend credibility. FirstHoldCo, trading near ₦105.50 after a 120% YTD rally, is priced for transformation and record H1 profits of ₦653.54 billion, while Wema and AccessCorp are priced for digital momentum and liquidity. FCMB’s low multiple suggests the market still views it as a “treadmill” bank: profitable and prudent, but not yet seen as architecting the future.The Preemption Gap vs. PeersWhere peers have moved to compete for foresight and new competencies, FCMB appears to be optimizing the present. Stanbic IBTC trades near ₦166.90 with a 67% one-year gain on the back of wealth management and corporate banking depth. Wema’s ALAT-driven digital push and AccessCorp’s volume dominance show banks leveraging constraints to create new markets. Even Zenith, with an 8.77% dividend yield and 21.7% ROE, and GTCO with strong liquidity, are being priced for both earnings and strategic positioning. FCMB, by contrast, is delivering exceptional earnings but without the same narrative of industry reshaping. Its valuation recovery is real, but it remains the challenger that has not yet converted performance into premium. The implication is clear: unless FCMB translates its earnings surge into a visible strategic architecture — new core competencies, digital scale, or market redefinition — it risks remaining the cheapest bank in a sector that is rewarding ambition more than efficiency. The market is saying it believes in FCMB’s numbers, but not yet in its future first
The Q1 2026 results prove the point and expose the paradox. FCMB delivered ₦76.53 billion in profit after tax on ₦320.22 billion in gross earnings. It sits on ₦7.96 trillion in assets, ₦1.14 trillion in equity, and ₦4.68 trillion in customer deposits. Those numbers are bigger than Wema’s . Yet as of July 20, 2026 the market priced FCMB at ₦11.80 per share, valuing it at roughly 2.4x annualized earnings with a dividend yield above 3%. In the same period Zenith, GTCO, Access and Stanbic all trade at multiples 3 to 5 times higher. Wema, with *₦5.23 trillion in assets and ₦63.13 billion in Q1 PAT*, trades at ₦30.90 — 2.6 times FCMB’s price.
The market is telling us what leadership has refused to hear. FCMB chose to shrink loans by 4.6% to ₦2.26 trillion, pile ₦1.81 trillion into cash, and lock ₦2.17 trillion in securities while peers lent, built platforms, and expanded across Africa. It chose caution over stretch, defense over growth, and efficiency over difference. The implication is now priced in: a bank can be stunted not because it lacks money, but because its leadership lacks the capacity to think differently. Until that changes, FCMB will keep winning the earnings quarter and losing the decade.
The difference between FCMB and the relatively younger tier-1 banks can be pinned down to one thing: thinking.
The old thinking in business is obsessed with size as virtue or vice, and with competition as something that only happens at the cash register. In that mindset, strategy is about beating the rival next door on price and product today, while organizations are treated as machines to be downsized when profits fall. Big companies are either “too big to fail” and must be protected, or they are bloated dinosaurs destined to be slimmed down by layoffs and cost cuts. There is no attempt to use size as leverage. There is only a choice between caution and contraction.
That is the thinking FCMB appears trapped in. It is not dramatically thinking differently like the younger tier-1 banks. The implication of this old thinking is everywhere: firms crash into the future with management asleep at the switch. A company richly endowed with resources and talent self-destructs not because of global competition or productivity gains, but because leadership failed to anticipate what was coming. By limiting competition to goods and services, such companies miss the real battles being fought outside the market — for foresight, for new competencies, and for the power to shape how an industry evolves. That blindness turns size into obesity and leaves a bank stunted, because it does not have the stretch and leverage to seize tomorrow’s mega-opportunities. The result is a franchise that remains relatively inefficient, that fails to grow assets, loans, deposits, equity and profit at the pace of peers founded after it, and that ends up valued as if it has no future.
The new thinking starts from a different premise: it is not enough to get smaller and better, a company must have the capacity to become different. That begins by redefining competitiveness not as bigness or smallness, but as the ability to use stretch and leverage to grow. Growth matters because it creates employment and wealth, and there is no honor in choosing to remain small when examples abound of firms that overcame resource handicaps to become leaders.
The younger tier-1 banks seem to be operating from this premise. They treat bigness not as something to embalm with caution, but as something to regenerate through productivity, technology, and process reengineering so it does not become redundant. They understand that bigness has real advantages that cannot be ignored — the resources to match global rivals, the capacity to invest disproportionately, the capital to access future mega-opportunities, and the responsibility that comes with being a major employer. At the same time, their strategy expands beyond the product market to include competition for foresight, for building competencies ahead of demand, and for forming coalitions that shape industry rules. Their organizations do not treat job losses as inevitable. They treat managerial failure to imagine the future as the true cause of corporate casualties.
The implication is clear. Companies that think differently will use size as a platform, not a prison, and will compete on ideas before they compete on price. Companies that don’t will keep cutting costs until there is nothing left to cut, and will discover too late that they lost the future in a competition they never realized they were in.
FCMB remains stunted in assets, loans, deposits, equity and profit relative to those younger tier-1 banks precisely because it has not made that shift. Until its leadership chooses to think differently, it will keep playing by old rules in a new game, and the gap will only widen.
Strategy has lost credibility because most companies treat it as annual form-filling — just tweaking marketing, sales, and costs in existing businesses. That only extends leadership, it doesn’t regenerate it. Real strategy needs a point of view about the future and a blueprint to get there. Companies must ask bigger questions: who do we want to be in 10 years, how do we reshape the industry, what new benefits and competencies should we build. And instead of just chasing profits or making big risky bets, strategy should be “patient money” — building knowledge first, setting stretching aspirations, and creating intellectual commitment to a future that’s bigger than today’s business.
Old organizations were too centralized, bureaucratic, and control-driven. But simply pushing for total decentralization or empowerment also fails. The new organization must be boundary-less — where units cooperate instead of competing, and value is found in the linkages between them. It must balance freedom with shared direction so people can design their own work but still pull toward the same goal. And instead of a company of clones or renegades, it needs a “community of activists” and “pack of wolves” — individuals who challenge the status quo but act together. The focus should also shift from just technology or just customer requests to constantly searching for ways to amaze customers with benefits they haven’t yet imagined.
For a long time we thought competition only happened in the market for products and price. But the real battles are outside that — for foresight, for building new competencies, and for reshaping industry rules. Industry structure analysis only tells us “what” makes firms profitable now, not “why” or “how” to create new advantages. Process reengineering and cost-cutting only treat symptoms. To truly compete, companies must understand their “genetics” — how leaders think and what assumptions hold them back. Winners don’t just accept industry structure, they transform it. That takes foresight, stretch, and leverage, not just efficiency. Without changing how we think, laggards stay laggards, and efficiency alone will not save them.
The new view of strategy is not about fine-tuning today’s business, but about claiming tomorrow’s. It starts with the premise that competition for the future is a fight to create and “stake out” new competitive space before it even exists. This means unlearning the past and moving beyond incremental, annual planning and perfect positioning inside current markets. Instead, companies must build great foresight to see where markets are heading, and a strategic architecture to deliberately build the core competencies that will let them dominate those markets. It shifts focus from fitting goals to existing resources, to setting stretch goals that force resource leverage and the seemingly impossible. It sees the corporation not just as a portfolio of businesses, but as a portfolio of competencies, and recognizes that competition happens between coalitions, within industries, and over industry structure itself. In this view, product failures are tuition for learning where future demand lies, and the real race is not time to market but time to global preemption — getting to critical markets first. Strategy, therefore, becomes less about allocating scarce resources and more about creatively overcoming constraints to invent the future.
While everyone has been demanding leaner, flatter, and more virtual organizations, few have asked if our way of “strategizing” is equally broken. An organization can be fit and efficient, but without a new strategic brain it will still be rudderless. That brain cannot sit with the CEO or a small planning team. It must be the collective intelligence and imagination of managers and employees across the company, all of whom need an enlarged view of what it means to be “strategic.” In other words, new structures need new thinking — strategy can no longer be a top-down, annual ritual, but a shared capacity to see the future and build it together.
Getting to the future first is not a race of speed, but a race of vision and ownership. It is not about “time to market,” but about *time to global preemption* — moving early to stake out and dominate the competitive space that does not yet exist. This demands three shifts: first, developing real foresight to see through the fog and locate where tomorrow’s markets will emerge; second, building core competencies ahead of demand so that when opportunities open, you already own the capabilities to exploit them; and third, measuring progress not by how much money is spent, but by how much knowledge is accumulated about technology and customers, because knowledge is what derisks ambition. In essence, companies must stop obsessing over optimizing the present and start architecting the future. Those that do capture the riches reserved for first movers. Those that don’t remain trapped, endlessly restructuring the past while others define what comes next.
Applying the new view of strategy means moving beyond fitting ambitions to what resources you have today. It requires setting *stretch goals* that are intentionally uncomfortable, forcing the company to creatively leverage and multiply limited resources rather than just allocate them. Strategy, in this sense, becomes an unending pursuit of overcoming constraints, not accepting them. It also redefines where competition happens: not only in today’s products, but in the race for *core competence leadership, foresight, and the power to shape future industry structure* — a contest that often plays out within coalitions of firms, not just between them. Finally, it changes how we treat failure. Product missteps are no longer waste to be buried, but signals to be mined, because they teach us where the real pockets of future demand are hiding. In short, to apply this view is to compete by stretching harder, learning faster, and shaping the game instead of just playing it.
Building and applying the new view of strategy means abandoning the old annual “rain dance” of tweaking today’s business and instead creating a *strategic architecture* — a clear blueprint for the competencies and market positions needed to win tomorrow. The goal of competing for the future is not to optimize the present, but to help managers _imagine_ the future and then _create_ it. That starts by asking fundamentally different questions: Who do we want to be in 10 years? How can we reshape the industry? What new benefits should we invent for customers? What new core competencies must we build now? Critically, this cannot be the work of just the CEO or a planning team. The “brain” of strategy must become the *collective intelligence and imagination* of managers and employees throughout the company, each with an enlarged view of what it means to be “strategic.” Only then can a firm get off the treadmill of restructuring and reengineering, and begin applying strategy as a tool to build the future rather than defend the past.
Leadership in banking is rarely lost in a single quarter. It is lost slowly, through a series of choices to defend what worked yesterday instead of imagining what could work tomorrow. That is the story of First Continental Bank. Once considered the benchmark for stability and scale, FCB has slipped from the center of the industry to its margins not because it failed, but because it refused to change.
The core of FCB’s problem was competitiveness. The bank continued to compete on the same terms it had used for decades: physical presence, collateralized lending, and reputation built over time. That model earned trust, and for a long time it earned market share. But the market itself changed. Value began to move away from branches and toward platforms. It moved away from products sold once and toward services embedded in daily life. It moved away from lending as the only engine of revenue and toward ecosystems where money, data, and trust are exchanged continuously. While competitors repositioned to meet customers in those new spaces, FCB stayed where it was comfortable. It kept optimizing the branch experience while others were building digital rails. It kept chasing the same corporate and affluent retail segments while others were designing for informal businesses, young earners, and micro-transactions. Over time, the bank became less relevant to the fastest-growing parts of the economy. It was not that customers rejected FCB. It was that FCB was no longer in the places where new customers were being formed.
That competitive drift was reinforced by organization. FCB was built for control, not for learning. Its structure mirrored the products it sold, with separate silos for retail, corporate, and public sector, each with its own processes, technology, and incentives. Decisions moved slowly because they had to pass through too many layers. Risk was treated as something to avoid rather than something to manage in pursuit of opportunity. People were promoted for tenure and for not making mistakes, not for creating new value. The culture prized consistency above curiosity. In contrast, the banks that pulled ahead organized around capabilities. They put product designers, engineers, data scientists, and risk officers in the same room and gave them authority to test, learn, and scale. They hired talent from outside banking and gave them space to challenge old assumptions. They measured managers not just on what they protected, but on what they built. FCB’s organization was designed to preserve the bank it had. The leading banks organized to build the bank they wanted to become.
Strategy is where these failures came together. FCB defined strategy as efficiency. The goal was to do existing things better, with lower cost and less risk. That is a defensible approach in stable times. But banking has not been stable. The leading institutions redefined strategy as reinvention. They asked different questions. Instead of asking how to lend more, they asked how to make money every time value moves. Instead of asking how to reduce costs, they asked how to create new revenue that did not depend on interest rates. Instead of asking how to protect capital, they asked how to deploy it to create options for the future. Some became infrastructure, opening their systems to other businesses and earning fees on every transaction. Some became data companies, using information to underwrite risk that traditional models could not see. Some became ecosystems, meeting customers through agents and wallets in places branches would never reach. FCB did none of these. It stayed focused on doing the old things with greater discipline. Discipline kept the bank safe. It did not make the bank important.
The consequence of this is not failure in the technical sense. FCB remains solvent. It still holds deposits. It still lends. But leadership is about more than solvency. It is about setting the terms of competition. It is about where talent wants to work, where investors want to put capital, and where customers choose to build their financial lives. On those measures, FCB fell behind. The banks that thought differently did not win because they were reckless. They won because they were willing to be uncomfortable. They accepted that the definition of a bank was changing and decided to help write that new definition.
First Continental’s experience shows that the biggest risk in banking is not volatility. It is the belief that the future will look like the past. Competitiveness requires meeting the market where it is going. Organization requires building for speed and adaptation. Strategy requires placing bets on new sources of value. When a bank refuses to think differently on all three, it does not disappear. It simply becomes less necessary. And in an industry built on relevance, that is how leadership is lost.
At a conceptual level, the strategic position of a company is determined less by its current resources and more by how its leadership thinks about *competitiveness, organization, and strategy itself*.
Companies whose leadership _failed to think differently_ remain trapped in three self-reinforcing loops. In *strategy*, they treat it as an annual ritual of form-filling — tweaking marketing, costs, and sales in today’s businesses. This extends leadership but never regenerates it, because there is no point of view about the future and no blueprint to get there. In *organization*, they either cling to centralized, bureaucratic control or swing to total decentralization without direction. The result is a rudderless structure: efficient perhaps, but without a collective strategic brain. Strategy stays in the C-suite, so the imagination of most managers and employees is never engaged. In *competitiveness*, they see competition only in products and price, and respond with reengineering and cost-cutting. They analyze industry structure to explain current profit, but never question the “genetics” of their own assumptions. Failure is treated as waste, and ambition is fitted to today’s resources.
*Implication*: These firms optimize the present and endlessly restructure the past. They become competent at defending yesterday’s position while others define tomorrow’s. Laggards stay laggards because efficiency alone cannot create a new future.
By contrast, companies that _do think differently_ operate on a different logic. In *strategy*, they abandon the rain dance and build a *strategic architecture* — asking who they want to be in 10 years, how to reshape the industry, and what new competencies to build now. Strategy becomes “patient money”: stretching aspirations, accumulating knowledge, and creating intellectual commitment to a bigger future. In *organization*, they create a boundary-less community of activists. Units cooperate, not compete, and the strategic brain is distributed. People have freedom to design work but pull toward a shared direction of amazing customers with benefits they don’t yet imagine. In *competitiveness*, they compete for foresight, core competence leadership, and the right to reshape industry rules — often in coalitions. They leverage constraints, treat product failures as learning, and measure progress in knowledge, not just investment.
*Implication*: These firms get to the future first through *time to global preemption*. They don’t just play the game, they shape it. By stretching harder and learning faster, they capture the riches reserved for first movers, while competitors remain busy allocating scarce resources to yesterday’s war.
In short, the divide is conceptual, not operational. One side asks “how do we do better with what we have?” The other asks “what future do we want to create, and what must we become to own it?” The first risks irrelevance through efficiency. The second risks discomfort through ambition — and that is precisely where advantage is born.
FCMB’s story is no longer about potential. It is about stagnation. A bank that once positioned itself as the most ambitious challenger in Nigerian banking has found itself stuck in the middle: too big to be nimble, too small to lead. While the industry has been redefined around platforms, data, and ecosystems, FCMB has remained largely defined by the way it has always done banking. As a result, its balance sheet has not scaled with the market, and its strategic position has slipped from contender to follower.
This stunting is most visible in the fundamentals that drive a bank’s relevance. Growth in assets has not kept pace with the market, while deposit mobilization has lagged as customers and liquidity moved to institutions with stronger digital propositions and wider ecosystems. At the same time, equity has not been built aggressively enough to support expansion, and the loan book has grown cautiously, often concentrated in traditional segments while new sources of credit were being created elsewhere. A bank cannot lead if it is not growing where the market is growing, and for FCMB that gap has compounded. Consequently, younger Tier-1 banks that were once behind it have now pulled ahead on scale, brand, and influence. In addition, some Tier-2 peers built in the last decade without legacy constraints have overtaken it entirely by moving faster and thinking differently.
Yet this is not simply a failure of execution. It is, more importantly, a failure of mindset, and it shows up clearly in three areas: competitiveness, strategy, and organization.
On competitiveness, FCMB continued to chase the same customers with the same products through the same channels. It leaned heavily on relationship banking, branch presence, and conventional lending, an approach that earned loyalty in the past. However, the market shifted decisively. Value moved to platforms where banking is embedded in commerce, to data-driven credit that reaches informal businesses, and to fee-based services that do not depend on interest rate cycles. The newer Tier-1 banks understood this early. Instead of asking how to get more customers into branches, they asked how to be present in the customer’s daily transactions. As a result, they built wallets, APIs, agency networks, and partnerships that placed them inside the flow of money. FCMB, by contrast, largely watched from the outside. It improved existing products but did not create new categories. In a market that rewards relevance, staying the same has therefore become a slow form of decline.
In the same way, on strategy, FCMB defined its goal as doing banking well rather than redefining what banking could be. Its posture was conservative: protect margins, manage risk tightly, and grow steadily. Prudence is not a weakness, but prudence without ambition quickly becomes inertia. Meanwhile, the banks that left FCMB behind made different strategic bets. They sacrificed short-term efficiency for long-term optionality. They invested in technology before it was profitable, in ecosystems before they were proven, and in new customer segments before they were obvious. They also treated capital not just as a buffer, but as fuel for reinvention, whereas FCMB treated capital primarily as something to be preserved. The difference, therefore, is not only about risk appetite. It is about imagination. Strategy is about choosing a future and building toward it, but FCMB’s strategy has largely been to extend the present.
Equally important is organization. FCMB remained structured for control rather than for speed. Decisions moved through multiple layers, and innovation was confined to a department instead of being embedded in the culture. Talent was developed internally and rewarded for continuity. The banks that overtook it organized differently. They broke down silos and built cross-functional teams around customer problems. They also brought in people from outside banking and gave them authority to challenge assumptions, and they measured leaders on what they created, not just on what they protected. In those organizations, experimentation became normal and failure was treated as data. In FCMB’s organization, the safest path was to maintain. Over time, this made the bank slower to respond, slower to launch, and slower to learn.
From this contrast, a broader pattern emerges about how organizations behave when they think differently versus when they do not. Banks that think differently do not just have better products. They have a different relationship with uncertainty. First, they compete on problems, not on products. Instead of asking how to sell more loans, they ask where value is being created that they are not part of. That line of questioning leads them into payments, embedded finance, data, and services for businesses that traditional banks ignore. They accept that banking is no longer a place, it is a capability.
Second, their strategy is built on bets. They know not every bet will work, so they make many small ones and scale the ones that do. They are willing to be inefficient for a while in order to build something new. For them, growth in assets, deposits, equity and loans is an outcome of relevance, not a target in itself.
Third, their organization is designed for learning. Authority is pushed down, teams are small and accountable, and technology is not a support function but the business itself. Culture rewards curiosity and discomfort, and leaders spend time outside the industry looking for patterns that can be imported.
By contrast, banks that fail to think differently optimize the past. They compete by being slightly better at what they already do. They define strategy as risk avoidance and cost reduction, and they organize for compliance and hierarchy. Because they wait for the market to prove a concept before entering, they always arrive late. They measure success by stability, and in doing so they confuse stability with progress.
The implication of this divergence is clear. Banks that think differently compound relevance. They attract younger customers, better talent, cheaper funding, and more partnerships. Their balance sheets grow because they are part of where growth is happening. Banks that do not think differently compound obsolescence. Their balance sheets grow slowly because they are only participating in the parts of the market that are also growing slowly.
FCMB is not at risk of disappearing. It remains a solid, well-run bank. But solidity is not leadership. Leadership requires the willingness to leave behind what made you successful and build what will make you necessary. Until FCMB rethinks competitiveness as participation in new ecosystems, strategy as a series of deliberate bets on the future, and organization as a platform for learning, it will remain where it is: a Tier-2 bank in a market that has moved on, watching younger and smaller competitors define the next era of Nigerian banking.
See less
