Free banking 'will be axed'

MPH80

MPH80 - I'm not sure I see your point. Are you saying that as they make so little out of me they can make this charge?

I'm saying that before everyone started claiming back their charges, before the OFT forced them to lower the late payment charges, before the OFT started the investigation into the mortgage exit fees, before they were coming under enormous pressure not to remove out of the way ATMS and before they announced they were changing the transfer system to remove the 3 day wait they were making £1.05 off you a week.

What do you think the chances are they've been able to keep that figure anywhere near £1.05 a week?

I'm saying they can justify the charge because their profit margins on their current accounts are now probably near 0 and they can't afford to keep going at that level.

Just because a bank makes large profits doesn't mean it's coming from you.

M.

pinkfluffybabe

Given the chat in the other thread about First Direct charging £10 per month for current account holders who do not hold other products, is it possible that banks will use this as a way to get customers to hold all financial products with the one bank?

I would be interested to hear what Martin has to say, he has always advocated not using the same bank for everything as they are never top of the charts for more than one or possibly two products.

Graham_Devon

I have a slightly different question here. What about people who survive solely on benefits, or pensioners on the state pension who find it hard enough to keep warm.

Will the government help fund these account charges? Therefore increasing costs for the taxpayer yet again? Or will the pensioner be charged out of his state pension?

HSBC has 15.6m customer. A £10 a month charge would make then £156m a month. I think I recall the first direct thread stating £10 per month. HSBC won't beat first direct.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to live in this country.

I wouldnt mind a charge to my personal account IF they said, 'ok, were gonna charge a set fee, but for that, we will lower interest on your loan'. Would never happen.

I'm not entirely convinced that the british public will alloy this to happen personally.

dixie_dean_2

Well, glad we cleared that up then.

I have a few questions. Who created this £1.05 figure and based on what and whose interests are served by this figure? From the bbc article, "current accounts work as recruiting grounds for more lucrative products - such as mortgages, pensions, credit cards and insurance". Ok, so they lure us in with this great free banking(sorry, i'm laughing here) only to then screw us even harder on credit cards (gotta love that quote from the barclays guy, more or less admitting their card was for idiots), insurance etc. I have no sympathy for the banks. And anyway, the argument being made, not necessarily by you, is, something along the lines of "well, we made good money by illegal and unfair methods and now for some odd reason my golf buddy over in court/OFT has said that we aren't actually allowed to kick people when they are down and charge £40 for a 25p service. I know, lets just create an arbitrary charge, let's just tell them they have to give us £100 a year. Then we can still drink all the champagne we want and to hell with bank charges, who needs them."

rchddap1

I'm not entirely convinced that the british public will alloy this to happen personally

If all the banks do it together I'm not sure people would have a great deal of choice in the matter.

However, where would customer stand in terms of Ts&Cs. Because the banks would be seeking to change thet terms on all their customer's accounts. Would we have to agree to that change, or can they do it because they want to?

Another alternative is that they keep the old accounts, stop new people joining them, and launch new bank accounts. So any new customers (ie, young people or switchers) are essentially forced down the pay route.

grex9101

Graham_Devon wrote:

I'm not entirely convinced that the british public will alloy this to happen personally.

They may not have a choice if the banks form a "cartel", whereby they all charge the same fee....

I'm pretty sure the big big big bosses talk to each other, dont rule out something like this happening....

davidjwest

dixie_dean wrote:

How do you not have a choice over gas and electricity?

The banks are the greediest !!!!!!s in a world of greedy !!!!!!s! How can they justify these charges when they continually make record profits (see OP)?

That's business for you, if you ran a business which made £50k profit one year, would you try to make less or more profit the following year? If you had shareholders to please then I can tell you the answer if you can't work it out for yourself.

Banks are very succesful businesses, go into McDonalds and ask them for a Big Mac and then ask them how much their profit margin is. Go into Marks and Spencers and buy an item of clothing and ask them what their margin is, etc etc etc.

Banks are the same, they have a margin but due to their huge "turnover" they make nearly as much money as some of the bigger oil companies - one thing is for sure Gordon Brown would really need to get inventive with his stealth taxes if it wasn't for the big banks greed.

Part of the reason banks are considering "transparent" charging is due to the recent OFT and FSA rulings, at least that's my opinion.

I'm wondering if the FSA will rule against such charging or if the government will set up it's own bank without charges for those who can't afford them.

davidjwest

rchddap1 wrote:

If all the banks do it together I'm not sure people would have a great deal of choice in the matter.

However, where would customer stand in terms of Ts&Cs. Because the banks would be seeking to change thet terms on all their customer's accounts. Would we have to agree to that change, or can they do it because they want to?

Another alternative is that they keep the old accounts, stop new people joining them, and launch new bank accounts. So any new customers (ie, young people or switchers) are essentially forced down the pay route.

Yes, they can change their T&Cs as long as they give notice, 90 days should cover it, perhaps 30.

dixie_dean_2

David, just 1 point. Your argument against me saying they are greedy,was, to paraphrase, they want to make more profit than last year. I must be mssing something.

dixie_dean_2

an i it would seem