Speculation grows that Barclays will be bailed out as investors 'throw in the towel'

Mike1989

ahai1 wrote: »

Yes I am not happy with banks as they keep on reducing the interest on savers. When people who use the overdraft as free cash they fine them which is good but then they cannot defend the penalities. Just call it a loan.

Getting back to the job cuts I have seen no evidence that the job cuts would not have happened as I have argued with banks moving to automation and call centres and internet there is not much need for staff. I have not seen a bank employee in years. I only go in to put cheques which have become less frequent and verify my signature which only happened once.

People who are talking about job cuts should look at modern banking.

I don't dispute banks have too many staff in some cases. But by that same notion, some branches don't have anywhere near enough. My point was the opposite to your own. That wishing a company takes a kicking generally affects those at the bottom rather than the top. Because if they do make losses, the first to go to help cut back are those at the bottom, not the top. That is my point. So it is wrong to say banks should take a kicking. IT is the directors, share holders and executives that should take a kicking. Not the actual institution as that would affect those in jobs that are dispensable.

Wait until Inactive shows up. You'll suddenly be grateful for ahai. At least he's a reasonable person.

In a totally unbiased view, Inactive off what I've seen isn't as argumentative.

ahai1

I agree it is the staff at the bottom who suffer but they are already suffering and the banks will use any excause they can to get rid of staff to make more money for the shareholders.

noah271007

That why i dont understand how companies with shareholders, sometimes had to resort to cutting jobs for staff at the bottom often even though they are making a PROFIT and I mean BIG PROFITS! Particularly when annual revenue is like a measly 4% less than the previous year, they still cut jobs. The reason? To make shareholders happy! I would much rather have people employed than not if still making profit.

ahai1

The companies are looking for even bigger profits and the best way to look at it from a business point is to cut overheards for example branches and staff by offshoring, moving online or automation. This is one of the reasons why the banks are desperate to get rid of cheques as they are more expensive then electronic transfer of funds.

Extant

ahai1 wrote: »

The companies are looking for even bigger profits and the best way to look at it from a business point is to cut overheards for example branches and staff by offshoring, moving online or automation. This is one of the reasons why the banks are desperate to get rid of cheques as they are more expensive then electronic transfer of funds.

They are not "desperate." If any bank were desperate, they would just announce that they were no longer going to offer cheques to their personal customers, or some other such move. More over, there is the National Payments Plan to be considered, and the consensus there in that clearing should only be closed off if the alternatives are in place, and both personal and business customers were confident in using them.

The only agreed timeline so far is that by 2010 agreed alternatives to cheques will have be found and will be developed. You're still looking at many years of cheques being in use, through a managed decline - there's no desperation here, otherwise it really would (and could) be as simple as "no cheques, bye."

Inactive

ShelfStacker wrote: »

Wait until Inactive shows up. You'll suddenly be grateful for ahai. At least he's a reasonable person.

I am very reasonable SS, it just that I don't agree with much of the biased banking clap trap that is spouted on here from mainly bank staff. ( but not all bank staff, even some of them are reasonable ).;)

ahai1

Inactive it is good to have you back. I am not a communist but maybe state controlled banks are not such a bad idea.

I note the word Barclaysmanager said about managed decline. I suspect that is the reason as banks don't want to stir up politicans and the public by cancelling cheques.

The trends in banks saving money are already there for example HSBC going green will save a lot. Internet only accounts, closure of branches. The banks maybe greedy but they are playing the waiting game and you can be sure it is not the customer who is going to be benefiting.

As I have said there are 3 branhes of the Barclays group in many area, 2 Barclays and 1 Woolwich.

Mike1989

ahai1 wrote: »

Inactive it is good to have you back. I am not a communist but maybe state controlled banks are not such a bad idea.

Everything state owned in terms of banks would not be a good idea. It gets rid of competition. Now it depends whether you are a supporter of competition or not, but competition is key for customers getting good deals.

The trends in banks saving money are already there for example HSBC going green will save a lot. Internet only accounts, closure of branches. The banks maybe greedy but they are playing the waiting game and you can be sure it is not the customer who is going to be benefiting.

I think one of the reasons for going green is undoubtedly it will cost them less money to print out statements and correspondence. However, there is also a little part of helping the environment as well. I don't have green banking because having statements there and then is more helpful than not. Plus, I'd only be printing them out anyway and filing them away.

But branch closures won't happen in this respect. Not everyone likes online banking and still prefer to use their branches. So they cannot really close branches purely because they want everyone to go online. Because the vast majority of their customers still use branches.

As I have said there are 3 branhes of the Barclays group in many area, 2 Barclays and 1 Woolwich.

And by area do you mean your town/city eg Preston 2 halifax, Blackpool 2 Lloyds TSB. Or do you mean an area such as the Fydle coast in Lancashire which includes Cleveleys, Fleetwood, Poulton, and that would mean there are 3 or so Barclays, 3 Lloyds, 3 Halifax etc?

But there isn't a major problem with having 3 branches of the same brand in one town or city as long as they are well used and busy. In some cases it can actually help.

ahai1

I am in favour of them been taken over by the government in a short term basis whilist they sort the mess out but in the long term they should be tightly regulated and in the private sector. Plus a lot of the new banks like the ones from the supermarket will be in private hands as they are profitable.

The 3 banks are in a area of London which is easily reachable bus and takes something like 10 minutes when there is no traffic and we have a Woolwich and Barclays in walking distance.

Extant

ahai1 wrote: »

Inactive it is good to have you back. I am not a communist but maybe state controlled banks are not such a bad idea.

Except that a state controlled bank would face significant operational restrictions, and could not operate in the way they do now: they would make significantly less profit, take on more bad debt, etc. State controlled industries traditionally cannot compete on an international stage and devote much, much less to research and investment.

If you want every bank to be like the Post Office, you should just go to the Post Office (enjoy your queue).

I note the word Barclaysmanager said about managed decline. I suspect that is the reason as banks don't want to stir up politicans and the public by cancelling cheques.

With regards to cheques, it's nothing to do with stirring up people: if we wanted to do it, we would do it. We are all businesses, and if that's a business decision that any given bank wishes to take, then they will - the real issue is more the decline in cheque usage by the general public.

To put it in context, I'll give you some figures that I have for B5 Barclays branches. B5 is a branch size, and is a "large" branch - usually around 20 to 25 staff or so. The average number of items processed in a B5 (that's cheques, bank giro credits, etc.) in 1997, the earliest year we have figures for, was 120,344 per month. That's kind of a neat year, since it's just now 2009 - roughly a decade later. Average number of items processed? 31,666. Not only is this proof that cheques are the work of the devil, but it also shows one key thing: customers just don't write them out as much.

Cheques are, for now, an integral part of business, but they still remain in decline. Consumers, both business and personal, are opting to do more business by Direct Debit, cards, and other means. Although clearing is in decline in the UK, it will never go away - other countries can and do issue sterling cheques, and then you require clearing for dollar cheques, and so forth.

It would be irresponsible of us not to work on a strategy to gradually reduce the processes involved, which would also allow us to match jobs significantly more, helping to reduce redundancies in the industry. But rest assured, we're reducing in-line with customer needs. If you started writing out thousands more cheques a year, we'd keep processing them.

The trends in banks saving money are already there for example HSBC going green will save a lot. Internet only accounts, closure of branches. The banks maybe greedy but they are playing the waiting game and you can be sure it is not the customer who is going to be benefiting.

Greed is a desire, which is a human issue. Banks are businesses and inherently not greedy by nature of not being people.

What we are, however, are businesses: there is a responsibility to shareholders to generate as much profit as possible, and not to waste money on branches that do not create a profit and result in a net loss. For some reason, people don't expect this behaviour from banks, but don't bat an eyelid when a Tesco closes down or similar.

As I have said there are 3 branhes of the Barclays group in many area, 2 Barclays and 1 Woolwich.

I don't understand what you're trying to say - there are no Woolwich branches anywhere now, they're integrated into Barclays Bank plc. All customers transferred over and took 20- sort codes, Woolwich only remains as our mortgage brand.