Wouldn't it be nice if a bank...

pmduk

Leg-end wrote: »

No its not and your statement is unfounded. Market leading products and service should not be detremental to business.

I suspect that you're missing the point, no one institution can be a market leader at everything. Many of the items on your wish list requires very low profits. Most banks are good at one or two thing but uncompetitive on the rest. That's what gives them the revenue to continue. If they cut costs to the bone on everything, they'll go out of business.

Leg-end_2

pmduk wrote: »

no one institution can be a market leader at everything.

You sound sure of this statement as if it were fact.

Anyway, my post did not state they should always be cheapest, lowest rate, etc.

I am quite aware banks make money and I am glad they do. My post was simply a light hearted 'if only' comment on the never ending issue of shifting pennies from peter to paul.

If there was not such a high level or apathy amongst bank customers I believe market forces would drive banks towards providing better products and services. Until then I'll just keep on moving things around.

pmduk

If one bank became a market leader at everything, then as others have said, their competitors will start to cherrypick part of their business. That means you'll still have to keep on eye on the industry if you want to receive the best returns.

Malory

I don't understand why anyone would want to have all their financial services performed by one organisation. If the bank has a problem or messes up your accounts, you are screwed.

When DH and I had all of our horrible problems with Santander, we had accounts with Lloyds and HSBC, so we always had access to some money even if Santander blocked/cancelled our cards or blocked our online access.

Also, I have heard about people owing money to a bank (loan, mortgage, credit card) and having the bank take the money out of their current account without their consent.

This wouldn't happen if the accounts were in two different bank.

Plus, do you really want one bank to know about every penny that you own or owe?

Edit: I understand if someone has trouble getting a bank account and only one bank will give them an account, but it is probably a good idea to have accounts in at least two different banks, if you can.

iereboy

You just want to be spoonfed. Pure laziness and missing the point as usual.

Again, no financial institution will do what you are proposing unless they want to go bankrupt.

As for me riding the high horse, what can I say...i'd rather be up here than down in the !!!!!! with you. LOL :cool2:

As for me doing my own research, I do! If you don't like the answers to the questions/ideas you put foward, don't bother using this forum.

I think we have entertained you for long enough.

Leg-end_2

An excellent point Malory. All your eggs (money or debts) in one basket could indeed lead to problems. I have not personally been in that situation but I can imagine the potential problems created if one bank were to have so much control over your finances. Probably a good thing that many people do indeeed keep their finances with different organisations.

Rafter

Always struck me as funny that people will switch supermarket if beans are a few pence cheeper, will not go back to a restaurant after one bad meal and will even ditch their husband/ wife if they don't get on.

However, they won't switch bank for bad service or poor rates.

The irony is, if everyone switched then those that offered poor rates or poor service would go out of business. It is customer inertia that makes it profitable for banks to offer good 'teaser' rates and poor rates for 'loyal' customers.

R.