End of free banking

surfcat

PROLIANT wrote: »

I think banks have the upper hand on this one, you can't get around without one, your employer will not pay you without one full stop and we pay for everthing else in this rat-race so what the hell, looks like you will have to bite the bullet on this one.

Not necessarily so. If banks were to start charging on a per service basis, eg, for each direct debit, standing order etc, then I could see people moving away from this as a bill payment mechanism (despite utility discounts etc). Cash payments would cost the bank a lot more in the end.

Petlamb

I would be annoyed, the wasy i see it - perhaps naively - is that they *use* the money to make money from - in the main, NOT issuing interest on CAs so therefore any money that is indeed made is theirs for profit.

i think if free banking was withdrawn in most banks, the ones that still did it would be very popular - and lets be honest in this day and age there is always someone/some company willing to offer a cheaper deal... primark, '3' (though not the best e.g. lol), aldi... there would be a certain amount of institutions who would spring up giving free or dirt cheap banking.

Or, perhaps new ways would emerge... i.e. accept that Bank SuchandSuch's website has adverts and its free, or your bank statement has a leaflet included?

could happen, methinks.

PROLIANT

We are missing the point here, a bank, like any other business, is in business to make money so paying for a service as valuable as secure banking is not that much of an issue is it?
Like I stated in one of my previous post's, we are given a set of tools to manage and access our money free of charge at present, what difference would paying a fiver per month make? Personally I think it will put things in balance, there is so much of this compensation culture going on where people can't manage a bank account correctly or look after their own money and when the !!!! hit's the fan they blame somebody else for their actions, this could be an opportunity for the banks and customers to play a fair game.

YorkshireBoy

PROLIANT wrote: »

...paying for a service as valuable as secure banking is not that much of an issue is it?

Haven't the bank staff paid for secure banking...with branch closures/downsizing, and ultimately their jobs?

We shouldn't have to pay twice should we? After all, that would be blatant profiteering wouldn't it?

storminbalder

I've already paid once anyhow. Through my taxes.

Extant

storminbalder wrote: »

How on earth will free banking kill off international business interest?

It has nothing to do with free banking, it has to do with the concept of a government ordering a business to provide a service for free - your idea that the government would never allow it to happen.

I will also doubt whether these banks will return to the private sector any time soon.

They are still effectively in the private sector, as the investments are to be managed by UK Financial Investments Limited - a limited company, predominantly to be run by private sector executives.

But, that aside, why wouldn't it "return" any time soon? The government has paid knock down prices for these shares, they'll be able to start profiting off them after a few years of recovery. I'd be surprised if, a decade from now, UKFIL still existed.

Your bank has behaved the most disgracefully of them all! Instead of taking the bailout from the British Government they prefered taking expensive funding from the Middle East ust to protect their executive pay packets.

Except that the funding works out at pretty much the same price AND allows us to maintain our flexibility and operational independence. Unless you have something against the fact that it came from the Middle East?

You might perhaps also like to note that despite us NOT taking the taxpayer's money, we have voluntarily decided not to pay cash bonuses for this year and likely next year - so all about protecting our pay packets, huh?

Also, if you think that we've behaved "disgracefully," you might like to take a look at your government - one part is telling the banks they need to raise BILLIONS in a credit sensitive market. The other part is offering to lend that money in return for a stake.

Hmm! Do you see anything WRONG with that? There's a reason Goodwin compared it to a drive by shooting.

storminbalder

BarclaysManager wrote: »

It has nothing to do with free banking, it has to do with the concept of a government ordering a business to provide a service for free - your idea that the government would never allow it to happen.

I have never suggested this as far as i'm aware?

I'm afraid I would also have to disagree with the remainder of your post. I firmly believe that the worst is yet to come.

From you post I also am thinking that you personally find it difficult in separating yourself as an individual from your work. This is not very healthy. I am not being critical of plebs like yourself, indeed you and other bank minions have the most to lose, but your executives. Do remember this.

Extant

storminbalder wrote: »

I have never suggested this as far as i'm aware?

You said that the people and the government would never allow it. Now... never mind the fact that the government will exert next to no direct control over the banks thanks to spinning it off to UKFIL. Pretty sensible.

So if they're not going to stand for it, the only way they could influence it is by law - and place a restriction on commerce - driving away business.

I'm afraid I would also have to disagree with the remainder of your post. I firmly believe that the worst is yet to come.

Okay, cool.

From you post I also am thinking that you personally find it difficult in separating yourself as an individual from your work. This is not very healthy. I am not being critical of plebs like yourself, indeed you and other bank minions have the most to lose, but your executives. Do remember this.

How wonderfully arrogant - to elevate yourself up to such a level as to make comments about my health or indeed call me a pleb or a minion. It's unfortunate that you resort to the ad hominem in what has, otherwise, been a perfectly civil conversation.

Also, I'm sorry to break this to you: but I am now one of those nasty executives. I'm not interested in discussing my pay, what I do, or anything like that - that's irrelevant. So I guess you don't really have to worry about me after all!

storminbalder

Pleb or minion isn't rude.

But you are right about me being arrogant!

storminbalder

Nice to see so much Latin being used on here.