Banks don't want my custom it seems

rockitup

THE FAMOUS SANTANDER NOT SO INFALLIBLE GUARANTEE

The guarantee that you will receive the money you invested and the minimum return at maturity is provided by Santander Guarantee Company, a wholly owned direct subsidiary of Santander UK plc. Investors in the plan are exposed to Santander Guarantee Company’s ability to pay which will be dependent on Santander UK plc and its subsidiaries continuing to be able to meet their financial obligations.

The Investment Company will enter into financial transactions with Abbey National Treasury Services plc which are designed to generate the returns under the Plan. These financial transactions will not be secured.
In relation to the two points listed immediately above, in the unlikely event that Santander UK plc was to collapse, you may lose some or all of your money.
=============================================================================================================

Now Naf, read into the above (copied & pasted from Santander.co.uk) and tell us what exactly makes this such a safe guarantee as you make out in your previous post. It is exactly the same as my relative had from Abbey National back in 2008.

If Santander UK cannot stay in business the the guarantee is not worth the leaflet it is printed on.

Sometimes, just sometimes I think tied Financial Advisers have been brainwashed by your employers, either that or you fail to give the complete warnings about risks to your customers....;)

dunstonh

There was a great post on this forum some time ago about depositing some cash into a fixed rate bond for 5 years and the rest into a FTSE tracker fund (which does pay dividends, unlike the GEB's). In my opinion this is far better than what the banks offer with GEB's/Structured products

The DIY GEB method has been posted here as alternative for about 5 years now. This wasnt just a post Lehmans crash idea. The posts from those years back suggests equity income (and equity and bond) as the investment option as the yield over 5 years would almost equate to a stockmarket crash in itself.

rockitup

dunstonh wrote: »

The DIY GEB method has been posted here as alternative for about 5 years now. This wasnt just a post Lehmans crash idea. The posts from those years back suggests equity income (and equity and bond) as the investment option as the yield over 5 years would almost equate to a stockmarket crash in itself.

Thanks dunstonh, I remember reading a very useful breakdown about this method maybe 3 or 4 years ago on this forum (if that was the one using fixed rate savings bond along with an index tracker). Do you have any links to the posts you mentioned please?

I pulled out the vast majority of investments on 1st and 2nd June anyway and intend to stay out for some months, if we do get a useful correction from current levels then the idea may be useful for the UK allocation in my portfolio.

5 years is classed as short-term for investments but I always worked on what I read about bull runs only lasting about a maximum of 3 years before a correction. I have had a fair share of both good luck and good timing over the years so that's why I cannot bring myself to invest in the 5 or 6 year term products especially poor ones from our generous high street banks.

jem16

rockitup wrote: »

Thanks dunstonh, I remember reading a very useful breakdown about this method maybe 3 or 4 years ago on this forum (if that was the one using fixed rate savings bond along with an index tracker). Do you have any links to the posts you mentioned please?

Dunstonh's DIY GEB from 5 years ago;
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=2729367&postcount=3

Jamesd's DIY GEB from 2 years ago;
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=17280839&postcount=4

rockitup

Many thanks for those links jem16, I better save those posts this time.

Maybe put a copy up inside some bank investment offices too!

Cheers

atypical

Naf wrote: »

Lloyds own HBOS; one's lending is the other's lending.

Lloyds and HBOS have only relatively recently been part of the same group. opinions4u was (clearly) referring to before then. HBOS had a very different attitude to risk compared to Lloyds TSB. As it says in the last LBG annual report:

"identification of large impairments post the HBOS acquisition, especially in corporate real estate, real estate related and Corporate (UK and US) portfolios"

"The total impairment charge ... continues to be primarily driven by the HBOS heritage corporate real estate and real estate related asset portfolios."

JamesU

jem16 wrote: »

Dunstonh's DIY GEB from 5 years ago;
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=2729367&postcount=3

Jamesd's DIY GEB from 2 years ago;
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=17280839&postcount=4

Absolute classics, just great stuff. Thanks for posting these.

JamesU

opinions4u

Naf wrote: »

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/savings-and-banking/article.html?in_article_id=519790&in_page_id=7
Technically they were Halifax branded agencies, but they're still part of the Lloyds group network. Santander have bought some up, made them full functioning branches.

It reads as if they've become agencies.

I'll refer you back to the article I just linked; Santander are constantly looking to increase their branch network. As I said, branches may relocate to give more local counter service, highly unlikely any will close outright.

Taking over agency arrangements in locations where they have no representation is one thing. But there is no way they'll keep 3 or 4 branches open in one town - and they have that sort of presence in numerous locations. It won't last forever.

Lloyds own HBOS; one's lending is the other's lending.

Lloyds took on the HBOS lending at the request of HM Government. They knew the Corporate book wasn't good. Nobody realised how diabolical the reality was.

Once again, I'll refer you back to my previous link; 'subprime lending'. Better business practise would continue to add value for shareholders, even if not every year then at least some in ten...

So a bit like Abbey National making some fairly astonishing losses in the last 10 years which lost them their independence?

Santander don't need the SLS, but having more liquid assets allows you to make more money, so why not? Their use of the scheme was purely a business strategy, not a necessity to survive.

They'd have been insolvent without it, as would others. A&L was exceptionally highly geared and was another Northern Rock waiting to happen.

The SLS doesn't count as it's obligatory to pay it back within 3 years. The £37billion of taxpayers money that has been poured in has been, in my opinion, taken very much for granted.

Your opinion is nonsense. I would think RBS and LBG hate the presence of the government so closely mixed up in their business.

Why haven't the banks made any offers to even begin buying back the nation's shareholding? Either because they're too strapped to afford it, or because the execs are too greedy.

Or perhaps the government isn't prepared to sell yet. It's quite clear that the banks themselves don't have the capital to buy back shares from somebody who isn't selling anyway.

You're right, its not, because Santander guarantee it themselves. Nothing to do with the DGS in Guernsey. Santander UK has a separate subsidiary on Guernsey who holds customers deposited funds. Santander UK guarantees the liquidity of the subsidiary, and the subsidiary guarantees the funds of the GGP customers. The subsidiary on Guernsey is within the ring-fenced system of Santander UK, but also separately ring-fenced from the rest of Santander UK's business; so the deposited funds cannot be taken out of it for any other reason than to pay back to the customer. For the customers to lose their initial deposit both Santander UK, and the deposit subsidiary would have to go under simultaneously, but as the subsidiary exists solely to hold the deposits there's no real way it could go under, plus Santander's market history stands it in good stead to guarantee the lot anyway. The two guarantee each other so the customers' funds are not at risk.

So if Santandaer went bump the whole house of cards would fall. It ain't covered by the FSCS. There's no way the government would bail out customers who lost money in this kind of product.

With Santander the customers' money is safe, probably why it's not called a GEB in the advertising. Refer you back above.
These products offer customers something between instant access accounts that lose out long term due to inflation, versus potentially inflation beating investments, but with risk to their funds. The return on the GGP products generally finishes ahead of inflation, although not as far as risk-based investments can.

Which ones that have matured in the last two years have achived this?

MarkyMarkD

marvin wrote: »

Except you would still need to go into a branch and prove your ID under the money laundering legislation.

No, you don't. Most banks can check your ID electronically for online or postal applications.

atush

we live on a small island in a small sea. in a small town. the bank is only open 9:30 am til 4 pm.

My son went to open an acct (current customer). Was told to come back that afternoon. Yet no was was with an advisor in the office, no one waiting and you could see the supervisory staff in the back.

I think it coulld be inefficiency.