Why do Banks try so many tricks?

jimjames

opinions4u wrote: »

A typical building society chief executive earns a higher salary/bonus package per customer than a bank chief executive.

KRBS (Kent Reliance) believe in providing value to their local communities. Their sporting sponsorships involve Gillingham FC, Charlton Athletic and Kent Spitfires cricket. They offer supporters a stunning rate of 0.10%.

Don't tell me the building societies are whiter than white. It simply isn't (in the majority of cases) true.

Kent Reliance Chief exec got a huge amount of criticism for his pay package of £500k for a society at the time that had 40 members of staff. Hardly the rate for a small local building society.

2sides2everystory

dunstonh wrote: »

Neither has any moral high ground over the other.

I think it might be more accurate to point out that 'moral high ground' and 'financial services' are mutually exclusive territories irrespective of whether we are talking bank, bs, mutual or otherwise. Mostly I think if it's fs it's all bs.

dunstonh

2sides2everystory wrote: »

I think it might be more accurate to point out that 'moral high ground' and 'financial services' are mutually exclusive territories irrespective of whether we are talking bank, bs, mutual or otherwise. Mostly I think if it's fs it's all bs.

it might be more accurate to point out that most households in this country have their lifestyles enhanced off because of banks and building societies. Whilst they have faults that should be addressed, this bash a banker mentality is getting boring.

le_loup

Very boring but, we must never let them forget what they did.

Loanranger

But the building societies did not cause the downfall of the banking system.
They have been victims of it, too, and are now required to put much larger chunks of capital in a central 'sinking' fund and also to retain larger sums of capital in their reserves. This translates into less money available to lend to their members and fewer opportunities to offer attractive savings rates.

property.advert

dunstonh wrote: »

... Personally, i would like to see bank charges on bank accounts and the money used to train staff like they used to be and bring back quality service and knowledgeable staff who are not being flogged to death with the choice of hitting sales targets or getting the sack. Consistency of interest rates would be nice as well but there is no chance of either when the typical consumer wants everything on the cheap and everything short term.

They have accounts with charges now but usually bundled with crap like travel insurance and so forth. A return to per item charging is never going to be accepted in the digital age so you are left with a fixed fee. With people visiting their branch less and less, just what justification is there for a fee at all (though my heart is in agreement with you) ?

My gut feeling is that your profession does or can benefit from this because all the money wasted on bank accounts should allow customers to pay for good independent financial advice on a fee basis. Simple transaction banking is far removed from the bigger financial picture (unless you are a muppet paying charges, interest, permanent overdrafts etc.).

opinions4u

Loanranger wrote: »

But the building societies did not cause the downfall of the banking system.

many of them brought on their own downfall by poor lending in markets they didn't understand. Cheshire and Dunfermline for example.

They have been victims of it, too, and are now required to put much larger chunks of capital in a central 'sinking' fund and also to retain larger sums of capital in their reserves. This translates into less money available to lend to their members and fewer opportunities to offer attractive savings rates.

Other than the banks being the bigger players, I don't see how the buildings societies can be seen as being the good guys. Many indulged just as stupidly.

talexuser

I can only give my own impressions from so called "carpetbagging" accounts I held in maybe 20 building socs for many years before bailing out. They all reduced to ridiculously low interest rates in a relatively short time, and had I been bothered would have to have spent a huge amount of time changing accounts internally to get better rates, and all were taken out before they started putting membership restrictions to restrict the carpetbagging. I saw no real difference in treatment of customers, the lazy eventually get poor rates, the interested have to move around to get the reasonable deals.

2sides2everystory

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog ... again

Maybe the dog wasn't lazy. Maybe the dog was an affectionate kind-tempered soul who never bothered anyone or anything and was now just feeling a bit leisurely and relaxing in its last years.

And the fox? What's his business ? What's he for ? He's a scavenger and a predator and can't be trusted.

dunstonh

They have accounts with charges now but usually bundled with crap like travel insurance and so forth. A return to per item charging is never going to be accepted in the digital age so you are left with a fixed fee. With people visiting their branch less and less, just what justification is there for a fee at all (though my heart is in agreement with you) ?

Only if you are foolish enough to choose one of those. Most banks still offer traditional bank accounts. Lloyds may not advertise the classic or classic plus accounts but they are available on request they are no bolt on cost current accounts. I suspect most banks are similar in that they want to sell you stuff and you just need to be strong and say no.

But the building societies did not cause the downfall of the banking system.

You look at the failures and its mostly ex building societies recently turned bank trying to borrow themselves to make them bigger. Even some smaller building societies still got caught up it.