Transparent interest rates

kenshaz

Banks bring out new rates to attract new customers,then reduce them ,with just an ad in a newspaper,should it be in the banking code that they inform you personally

Milarky

No necessary. The issue is about bank's reluctance to give a decent period of 'advance' notice - say 30 days - equal to that which they already are obliged to give under the Banking Code when making changes to terms and condtions unless they are to the consumers 'advantage'. I would be very 'happy' if a bank was required to give at least 30 days notice before making any reductions in interest rates. Once this had been posted it would very quickly pass around so customers, IMO, should not need to be peronally notified.

ReportInvestor

I've voted no because of the costs (and lower interest rates as a result).

But I would support a facility whereby investors could be informed by e-mail if they wished.

masonic

I have to agree with the points raised above. I do not mind keeping track of the interest rates myself, just as long as the information is 'out there' in advance.

ReportInvestor

Adherents to the banking code publish it on their website at the time of the change.

Martin probably gets advance notification .

Do we really want to add to the banks' costs since everyone here gets the information pronto ?

kenshaz

ReportInvestor wrote:

I've voted no because of the costs (and lower interest rates as a result).

But I would support a facility whereby investors could be informed by e-mail if they wished.

Competition will sort the interest rates out,keeping us informed will not have an effect.

grumbler

Any extra costs involved will have an effect. Competition cannot change this.

Stonk

The MSE website is brilliant for hearing about interest rate drops. I check the Savings board once a week, and very few rate drops get through without somebody noticing it and making a prominent post with an angry smiley (an angryey?). Also, some drop get notified in advance, before the information is generally available, e.g., because of something a staff member said in a branch for instance.

So, I vote No, because of the increased costs.