So where exactly is LHV bank heading?

LHV has always stood for bringing innovation to finance, making all financial technologies accessible, and ensuring that people who need capital can get it to realize their dreams. That mission continues. The world has changed a lot in ten years, and we probably need to redefine more precisely what we do and how we do it.

Number one is always technology and the environment, but also the fact that today LHV is still largely an Estonian bank — 80 percent of our results come from Estonia. And Estonia has changed a lot.

Where do you see that most clearly?

I don't want to sound like a skeptic, but it seems to me that the broader narrative is that Estonia has shifted from a growth-oriented society — where the goal was to grow the pie so everyone gets a bigger slice — to a redistribution society, where if we take something from Group A or favor Group A, Group B has to suffer a bit because the pie isn't growing as fast.

If you look at the past five years, Estonia's real economic growth — excluding inflation — has been only about 4.5 percent. But if you look at banks, how much has the loan portfolio grown? About 50 percent. That's more than ten times faster.

Something seems off. It looks like the real output of society has grown less than five percent, yet we've taken on more than ten times that in debt — about 50 percent. Essentially, what we're doing is selling land and real estate to each other at ever higher prices.

From your recent interviews, I somehow get the impression that Rain Lõhmus — who usually arrives in Estonia from Switzerland with a light tan, exudes confidence, and thinks big — has lately started to act a bit rashly.

I don't think it's erratic — it's intentional. In the 1980s, Finnish TV ads used the phrase "as seen on TV." Maybe I want to communicate something to my colleagues, but it carries more weight if it comes through the media. It might be a kind of clever manipulation.

So the "ten percent rule" you introduced through the media was really aimed internally?

Not specifically, but essentially it's an internal LHV matter. I didn't say Estonian Television or the Radisson Hotel should do this.

Why say it publicly then?

It came from the question of what we should do. When we went public, one promise was that we wouldn't become a PR-controlled gray company — we would say what we think. And that's what I think.

It was heavily criticized. Did it surprise you?

Honestly, I didn't think about it much, and I don't care. If you don't get criticism, you're just part of a gray mass trying to please others. That doesn't move anything forward. Today's problem is that people are afraid to oppose consensus — and without that, nothing new can emerge. All radical ideas are controversial at first.

What problem are you trying to solve?

Things are always moving forward or backward. LHV must move forward, and part of that is redefining where we're going. If being the largest bank means leading in lending — and lending might fuel inflation — do you really want to lead that race?

Have you become concerned about that?

Maybe not emotionally, but you have to choose carefully which races you compete in. We're not shutting things down, but that can't be the ultimate ambition. LHV doesn't define Estonia — we operate within it. We have to accept how people think, what government they elect, and act optimally within those conditions.

How would you explain the problem simply?

I would say the problem is that I — and perhaps other founders as well — have an ambition to always move forward; we don't believe that a comfortable life, where you don't have to worry about money and have plenty of free time, is the goal. It seems to me that a person must always have a very clear mission, and if you don't have that mission, you will never be happy.

If someone says, for example, that they like it when people are working at nine in the evening — even on a Sunday — that might seem very harsh to some. But if that's what you enjoy doing, then why should you spend your Sunday watching TV or necessarily grilling, if you'd rather be pushing something forward?

A great many people were asking: why should I think about how to generate more wealth for Rain Lõhmus, when I have two children, a dog, a mortgage I manage just fine, and I enjoy weeding radishes at my summer house?

Absolutely — and Estonia has plenty of amateur sports clubs. We don't have to be one of them.

So those people don't belong in this bank?

No.

Even if that sounds harsh?

Yes! If we want to become a professional sports team, then people like that don't fit. I mean, I also really like greenery and carrots, and my grandmother used to grow them too, but I wouldn't bring my grandmother into the bank either.

What about balance, mental health?

I think mental health comes from growth. To develop people, you need two things: challenging tasks and an environment where they feel surrounded by stronger or smarter peers. Then money becomes secondary.

Did the public reaction surprise you?

A little — it became bigger than expected. I didn't see anything that radical. Looking in the mirror, I'd say I'm more stagnant than revolutionary.

What's your actual plan going forward?

We're searching. There's no fixed blueprint. We have ideas, but they're still being tested — and we can't discuss them publicly due to bank secrecy.

How is Estonia's economy doing?

Growth under 2% isn't inspiring. The bigger issue is that societal thinking is off. Too much focus is on redistribution rather than growth.

For example, I recently read in the news that they want to pass the Climate Act again. I also really like greenery and so on, but I think there isn't necessarily a direct connection between the Climate Act and being green. And now there's this kind of argument that, well, so what — let's just pass it. But in reality, it's not a matter of "so what." Steve Jobs once put it very well: if you want to get somewhere, you have to choose one or a few very good ideas and be able to say no to a hundred other good ideas. If you chase all hundred, you won't get anywhere.

It seems to me that this is somewhat of an issue in Estonia today — that we want very much to be green, and very much to be militarily strong, and very much to be socially oriented, but in the end we aren't really anything. What makes me think is that no one has said, for example, what the growth target is or how big the pie actually is. The whole time, the argument is about how to redistribute it — whether to tax banks more and give more to retirees or to buy more ammunition. It's all redistribution, and the entire public discussion has shifted to that, which is very bad.

We lack the courage to get things done?

In Estonia today, we are essentially spending more than we earn, and I hope we're not first in line for act one — because as a playwright, act two in this tragedy would be politicians starting to think about where to get that money from. Of course, you can take money from those who have it — take from the richest ten percent, start squeezing them, and redistribute it.

Many countries have gone down that path without thinking about what will happen next. Most likely, the top one percent will just leave altogether. The rest will lose the incentive to create anything new and will instead start thinking about how to lobby for a slice of that same pie. I very much hope we don't move into that second act, but I'm not entirely sure.

Are you saying Estonian politics is stuck?

I think it's more a broader societal mindset. By the way, I think the media also plays its role there — so congratulations, just look at what you write about and what you do. But fundamentally, the question is whether we want the pie to grow or whether we want to optimize redistribution. Right now, the whole discussion has shifted toward optimizing redistribution.

Elections are in nine months — are you running?

No. I've decided I'm a hero of capitalist labor, not a people's hero.

But seriously, recently there have been opinion pieces saying Estonia has become a retirement home for career politicians — that we need technocrats, people from specific fields, to get things moving again.

That comes back to focus — you have to choose. Maybe that would be a good thing, but as Steve Jobs used to say, it's one of those hundred good ideas you have to say no to.

Are you not worried your phone might be tapped?

I always assume it probably is. I'm not afraid, but I assume it's not necessarily secure.

If you have an important business discussion, do you use Signal, which can't be wiretapped?

There's nothing that can't be tapped. Again, I'm not a revolutionary, and if I were, I'd probably know methods for disappearing more completely. But I don't have anything that secret.

That said, when it comes to privacy going too far, I think it is heading in that direction. People easily understand phone tapping, but I'd argue that if I listened to you for a couple of days or got access to your bank accounts for a couple of years, I could profile you far better based on your transactions. I think that's the really sensitive issue.

I've tried it myself — taking my son's bank statements and running them through AI. It's frightening what you can find out: when he travels, where he goes, his hobbies. If I were a bad person… That's where I see the real concern.

Why has it gone this way — that we've allowed the state to monitor us like this?

That's a good question. A Swiss acquaintance once told me that if VAT were 24% in Switzerland, people would be out on the streets. I don't know.

A bank tax could come up in the upcoming elections.

I think it's a terrible idea. First, banks already pay corporate income tax continuously, every month. Fundamentally, why would you want to tax banks? Some argue they're semi-monopolies — but what happens when you take more money from a monopoly? They pass it on to customers. In the end, the money still comes from people, and it's just a more harmful way of taxing. I hope people understand that.

This interview has been edited for length from the original Estonian version.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!