We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
NatWest in 'MoneySense' shocker...
Options
Comments
-
Myrmidon_J wrote: »I have no problem with this at all. The people you see are evidently professionals and understand the nature of their line of work.
However, I would feel rather cheesed off if I was (effectively) paying for this service to be offered by untrained 'MoneySense' advisers, which I take it your chaps aren't!
Yep, they're definitely not the untrained advisors. However it's worth noting that I pay a £200 (or something, can't remember exact amount) yearly subscription to have a private banking account. It comes with some benefits (legal advice, free travel insurance, concierge service, the usual rubbish), but the subscription means the advice & service I get is "less free" than the in-branch advisors. I'm happy to pay it because I find it useful being able to call my account manager and get him to do stuff/fix problems that I'd normally have to make an appointment and sit in a branch for, but it's worth bearing in mind.Mmmm, credit crunch. Tasty.0 -
I still cant get over the fact that they only have 8 hours training.A customer kept even for only a year because of it would be worth the ~£7 (?) spent on wages surely.You've never seen me, but I've been here all along - watching and learning...:cool:0
-
Have to say this thread proves a point to me, Financial Advisers have to state they are FA's in their sig, I also think that people commenting on an organisation should have to state they work for that organisation before giving thier massively biased opinion.I am a Financial Adviser.
Anything posted on this forum is for discussion purposes only. It should not be considered financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser who can advise you after finding out more about your situation.0 -
unhealthyman wrote: »
The fact that 60% of the advisors (from a not particularly robust sample of 5) provided free and impartial advice suggests that this is a case of poor training or implementation on a branch level rather than an "evil scheme" by head office.
Can you imagine the outcry if IFAs and other financial services professionals had a success rate of just 60% - or, to put it another way, if they were somehow corrupt in 40% of cases?
Some regulars on this site would have a field day if the figure was just 10%!sons wrote:
Have to say this thread proves a point to me, Financial Advisers have to state they are FA's in their sig, I also think that people commenting on an organisation should have to state they work for that organisation before giving thier massively biased opinion.
I completely agree.For the avoidance of doubt: I work for an IFA.0 -
Myrmidon_J wrote: »Can you imagine the outcry if IFAs and other financial services professionals had a success rate of just 60% - or, to put it another way, if they were somehow corrupt in 40% of cases?
Some regulars on this site would have a field day if the figure was just 10%!
That's not really the point I was making - I was pointing out that rather than being an 'evil banks' scheme to trick people, it's more likely down to bad training. Is it implemented badly? Perhaps. Is it a scheme from head office to flog more Natwest products? I doubt it.sons wrote:Have to say this thread proves a point to me, Financial Advisers have to state they are FA's in their sig, I also think that people commenting on an organisation should have to state they work for that organisation before giving thier massively biased opinion.
Not sure who you are directing this at, but being a dissenting voice doesn't count as a massively biased opinion. Everyone else in this thread is smugly chuckling about the 'evil banks being evil' which is just rather simplistic and banal.
For the record, I don't work for Natwest and don't work in finance at all. I just find some of the posts in this thread rather tedious.
"LOL BANKS TALKING ABOUT BEING SENSIBLE :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:"
Give it a rest.0 -
unhealthyman wrote: »That's not really the point I was making - I was pointing out that rather than being an 'evil banks' scheme to trick people, it's more likely down to bad training. Is it implemented badly? Perhaps. Is it a scheme from head office to flog more Natwest products? I doubt it.
I still find it somewhat ironic that Natwest, part of RBS, the bank with the worst track record for mis-managing it's own financial affairs in the UK, are employing staff to specifically help customers and no doubt potential customers with advice on how to run their financial affairs.
Clearly they cannot even get this basic task right.:rolleyes:0 -
unhealthyman wrote: »
Not sure who you are directing this at, but being a dissenting voice doesn't count as a massively biased opinion. Everyone else in this thread is smugly chuckling about the 'evil banks being evil' which is just rather simplistic and banal.
For the record, I don't work for Natwest and don't work in finance at all. I just find some of the posts in this thread rather tedious.
.I am a Financial Adviser.
Anything posted on this forum is for discussion purposes only. It should not be considered financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser who can advise you after finding out more about your situation.0 -
I still find it somewhat ironic that Natwest, part of RBS, the bank with the worst track record for mis-managing it's own financial affairs in the UK, are employing staff to specifically help customers and no doubt potential customers with advice on how to run their financial affairs.
Clearly they cannot even get this basic task right.:rolleyes:
I think that's a bit of a cynical view. You can absolutely guarantee that none of the retail-service focused financial advisors, fund managers or whatever had a single thing to do with management of the RBS Group's finances. I'd be seriously scared if Trisha at the Bognor Regis Travel Money counter was co-ordinating CDOs for the group
It's perfectly possible for a good company with good staff to fail due to upper management failures - Enron is a perfect example.
I don't work for NatWest, I'm just a customer.Mmmm, credit crunch. Tasty.0 -
Added a Sig so you all know that I am biased in my posts.....0
-
Update:Which? challenges impartiality of NatWest's MoneySense service
...
The new study by Which? found that just four out of 20 MoneySense sessions attended by researchers provided the imp!artial information advertised, without any attempt either at or after the meeting to interest the customer in NatWest products.
During six of the visits, Which? says the adviser spoke exclusively about NatWest products and in two of these, there was no mention of shopping around.
In the other 10 visits, the researcher was passed on to a customer service adviser or the MoneySense adviser ended the session and went on to speak exclusively about NatWest products.
http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=185838&d=340&h=341&f=342&nl=MM_BN&dep=webops&dte=060509
Yet more evidence (as if it were needed) of institutional corruption on the high street.
Cue outrage; cue trolling.unhealthyman wrote:
I was pointing out that rather than being an 'evil banks' scheme to trick people, it's more likely down to bad training. Is it implemented badly? Perhaps. Is it a scheme from head office to flog more Natwest products? I doubt it.
Whilst I am not of the tin foil hat wearing, conspiracy theorising, che guevara worshipping persuasion, I would respectfully suggest that there is more to this than "bad training".
In its marketing materials, NatWest describes the service as “completely focused on helpful guidance” and “not linked to endorsing or selling products”.
Again, I'd point out that if IFAs were found to be offering genuine, impartial advice in just 20% of cases sampled, the profession would be utterly finished - and several members of this board would have a field day.
Why is it that the regulator is so obsessed with chasing and persecuting IFAs, when banks are permitted to act as irresponsibly as this, on such as scale?
(And why are we still subjected to those awful adverts?)For the avoidance of doubt: I work for an IFA.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 257.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards