HSBC Changing all Bank accounts

Lokolo

dougz wrote: »

Obviously there are ways around it. But that is not the point.

My point was, the sort of people who do not have a steady minimum of £500 every month coming in, will also tend to be the sort of people who struggle to organize themselves and their finances, and keep in the black. Thus this targeted denial of monthly printed statements can only increase the tendency to get accidentally overdrawn, of those people already more at risk of it.

Not true at all.

£500 a month is £6k a year. Even on minimum wage you earn more than that working 5 days a week 9-5. Those that don't earn over £6k a year are a) not working or working very very few hours b) too young to be working c) not using the account a lot

HSBC obviously want people using their account more so the incentive is the text thingy ma jig and other stuff, like cheque gaurentee. Whats the point in wasting sending out paper statements to half the population who use their HSBC account once every 2 weeks?

sutton111

does anyone have any images of the hsbc plus account debit card ive been on there website but its not on there.

ShelfStacker_3

Inactive wrote: »

I find that remark extremely offensive.

I found being called "brainwashed" offensive, but seeing as the shoe is now on the other foot it appears you've come over all touchy feely.

Anyway:

I seriously dont believe that the idea behind this account migration is the aim of charging customers more?... its designed to save HSBC money rather than earn it mainly

Pretty much. I'm presuming the money saved is going towards the provision of services like the red24 helpline, the Regular Saver and Monilink (neither of which are "free", not least with other banks).

Bear in mind also that HSBC had a spate of people opening up Bank Accounts just to get the Regular Saver when it was available last time, which probably cost them a fair bit of money (current accounts cost money to start and admin, even when they aren't being used). The change could have the effect of stopping that for all but the most dedicated people.

If I cease to be able to pay £500 per month into the account... what happens to me? Do I get hit with a fee?

No.

My point was, the sort of people who do not have a steady minimum of £500 every month coming in, will also tend to be the sort of people who struggle to organize themselves and their finances, and keep in the black. Thus this targeted denial of monthly printed statements can only increase the tendency to get accidentally overdrawn, of those people already more at risk of it.

The people who struggle to organize their finances and themselves most likely wouldn't read the statements at all, whether monthly or quarterly or whatever. Red herring.

At any rate, it's ridiculously easy to check your balance in any number of ways these days. If people choose not to, whose fault is that?

I know a lot of people who don't have net access and they are not elderly but also they do want regular access to their accounts.

And they can still get that. Telephone or branch banking.

Froglet

As i said before,i am more than happy with HSBC and was concerned when there were a lot of rumours recently that banks might well start charging for any current account,owing to the large sunms of money they were having to give back in reclaimed bank charges.

As this is not now going to be the case i am more than happy for HSBC's new accounts which are still free.When you think of the convenience they provide in paying out standing orders,direct debits and other bills,plus the security of having wages paid in directly instead of the risky old system of physically having to pay in cash from your pay packets i don't think we get a bad deal at all.(from any bank not just HSBC)

ahai1

Thank you for letting us know that people on all low incomes don't read the statements. I can tell you that is not true in many cases but then it does not matter.

The money is going to the shareholders.

ShelfStacker_3

ahai1 wrote: »

Thank you for letting us know that people on all low incomes don't read the statements.

...which I didn't say. Please apologise for completely misrepresenting what I said. What I said was that people who (and I quote) "struggle to organise their finances" (not strictly those on low incomes) would probably be the ones not paying attention anyway. Complete misrepresentation.

ahai1

I withdraw that comment on low incomes it was a misunderstanding but it could have been implied from reading the post.

I would like to know the alternatives?

Yes bank shareholders do deserve a return but it should be a fair one.

As for mutuals I was watching on Sky that building societies have seen a massive increase in the number of customers.

I see no point in discussing this any further as it is clear that HSBC are not going to listen to us and we are not going to listen to them.

ShelfStacker_3

ahai1 wrote: »

I withdraw that comment on low incomes it was a misunderstanding but it could have been implied from reading the post.

Good.

I would like to know the alternatives?

Phone banking. Internet banking. Branch banking - statement machines, asking a cashier for a balance or whatever, checking an ATM mini-statement. Monilink, text banking. Quite a few alternatives.

Yes bank shareholders do deserve a return but it should be a fair one.

Your definition of fair is very skewed. You want them to pay interest, you want them to offer the same thing to everyone (including people who actually lose the bank money), you want them to basically give you absolutely every service they can possibly offer but still somehow make a profit. That, can't, happen. The Regular Saver alone actually loses HSBC 3.5% AER, and you expect them to dole that out to people who only ever pay in £250 a month - the same £250 that goes straight into the Regular Saver?

As for mutuals I was watching on Sky that building societies have seen a massive increase in the number of customers.

So has everyone, including (on quite a vast scale as it happens) HSBC, because of the desire for safer places to lend and to spread money around.

I see no point in discussing this any further as it is clear that HSBC are not going to listen to us and we are not going to listen to them.

They're probably not. And "we" at this point consists of you and Inactive, whereas HSBC has actually carried out market research to gauge what most people likely feel, and obviously the response was positive else we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Feel free to go to your credit union, where you'll have even fewer features than you would do with a basic cash card account at any actual bank. More power to you, but don't imply it's somehow "unfair" for an organisation to make a profit by aiming its products more precisely at what it considers its target market.

Extant

ahai1 wrote: »

Yes bank shareholders do deserve a return but it should be a fair one.

There is no such thing as a "fair return". You are some how mistakenly thinking that the experience of a customer of any given retail bank should somehow be linked to the dividend paid for the parent group.

That's simply not how it works, sorry. That's not where the responsibility of a business lies - the responsibility is to their shareholders, and producing the highest return (dividend) as possible for them.

Considering that most banks have considerable stakes held by pension fund managers etc., I have no trouble with this at all.

Might I suggest you buy some shares? You'll see it differently then.

ShelfStacker wrote: »

Good.
So has everyone, including (on quite a vast scale as it happens) HSBC, because of the desire for safer places to lend and to spread money around.

Us too. Whilst I'm very happy that Sky says the building societies and credit unions have received an upsurge in business, so have all the banks. And when you put all of that aside, it's quite easy to see the reality of the situation: we have all had an "upsurge" of business because people want to move their money around.

The only real indication will be balance sheets, which none of us are currently privy to, or will have any idea of, until the next set of results are reported.

Inactive

ShelfStacker wrote: »

I found being called "brainwashed" offensive, but seeing as the shoe is now on the other foot it appears you've come over all touchy feely.

Not at all, because the remark that I find offensive, does not actually apply to me.

The one thing that thread has made very clear to me is that the bank employees posting on here, do not give a toss about customer needs, they clearly have been brainwashed by their employers, they defend without question any changes made by their employers, it appears that they care more about any critical comment about their company than applying common sense.

Well, remember this....you are just a number to your bosses, when push, comes to shove, your loyalty could well have been wasted.
:rolleyes: