This essay critically engages with the concept of asset-manager society (AMS) proposed by Brett Christophers. We begin by drawing out its five key elements through a contrast with the related but distinct concept of asset-manager capitalism. We then ask to what extent AMS can be observed in the countries of the Global South, which are characterised by a subordinate position in international money and financial markets. We conclude by highlighting some potential implications of the rise of AMS in these economies and offering some broader thoughts on the future.

In this commentary, I argue that Leon Wansleben’s focus on financial plumbing as a source of central banks’ epistemic and instrumental power will be met by the profession with a mixture of relief, incredulity, and worry. More importantly, I maintain that central bankers’ relationship with finance varies according to whether or not they are independent from elected government, an under researched area. All this works as a point of departure for remarks, drawing on my own memories, on central banking’s relationship with neoliberalism in monetary policy, monetary operations, and banking. Finally, I urge that Wansleben’s method be applied to anti-trust and the micro-economic regulation of utility services.

In Our Lives in Their Portfolios, Brett Christophers provides an account of the rise of ‘asset manager society’ – a world in which the infrastructures of public life are converted from public to private ownership. Here I use Christophers’ analysis to comment on growing calls for asset manager investment in climate adaptation. The asset manager business model requires ever-escalating returns, a poor fit with the now unavoidable losses that climate change promises to bring.

Asset managers have assumed a position of unprecedented power and influence in the control of essential infrastructures of social life, with broadly negative ramifications. But as the commentaries assembled here all insist, it did not – and does not – have to be this way. In this reply, I discuss the potential, as I see it, for the world to be otherwise, offering a rather pessimistic prognosis.

Central banking studies continues to consolidate around common foundations, but points of tension and disagreement persist. In this reply, I discuss three such points raised by contributors to this forum. These relate to the concept of infrastructural power, the significance of financial stability policy, and questions of historiography. I also offer some reflections on future directions for the study of central banks.