My immediate response to the news that Lazard, the boutique investment bank, is to cut 10% of its staff amid a “dealmaking chill,” is that they should cut 10% off the fees they charge to their clients instead. Actually, they should cut a lot more off than that.

I have never been a great fan of investment banks advisory fees having been party to the payment of several eye-watering sums over the years. The City has always been accused of getting its pound of flesh whatever the economic circumstances, and those of us mere mortals probably agree. It’s a club that few of us can join, and it should be called out as such.

For example, the Takeover Panel – through its oversight and governance of the “code” by which parties to a controlled transaction in listed shares must abide – effectively mandates the use of an investment bank in that transaction. Of course, others can advise, but the big transactions always use members of the “club” — is it just a coincidence that many of its secondees come from investment banks, and many will return there, as will some to the magic circle of law firms?

This hardly seems fair or right in our democratic age. If the purpose of the Code is to protect the widows and orphans who own shares in the transacting companies, someone might spare a thought for the cost being borne by those poor souls having to appoint investment banks to follow those rules.

Lazard itself is, arguably, one half of a duopoly if one seeks an independent adviser. Just four or five major banks vie for the crown in the “biggest,” “best,” “most” deal maker tables each year. Such a limited set of providers of services to thousands of listed companies around the world is not knowingly going to lower costs, and the big five know how to charge.