This is a rant

opinions4u

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Yes, I know but it was the shock of finding that an account I thought was still paying me 3% had infact dropped to 0.5%. Overlooked on my part

So an account they told you had a bonus expiry date or similar dropped off bonus and you forgot about it.

but the fact that an incidental phone call to move a substantial amount out of "mybank" for other reasons led them to offer me an account similar to the original one

When you make contact with them, they proactively highlight that there is a better rate of interest available for you.

not exacty a new customer after dealing with for 35 years, but now an ex one.

So you have a rant and leave them, even though the account in question did what it said it would do and the bank pointed it out to you.

cyclonebri1

opinions4u wrote: »

So an account they told you had a bonus expiry date or similar dropped off bonus and you forgot about it.

When you make contact with them, they proactively highlight that there is a better rate of interest available for you.

So you have a rant and leave them, even though the account in question did what it said it would do and the bank pointed it out to you.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:If that's being proactive, well enough said:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

And yes, I did forget, I have a bob or two spread around for obvious reasons so it's my fault entirely is that what you wanted me to say.

Old_Wrinkly

opinions4u,
whilst I agree with the rest of your post (#10), I feel the need to comment on this bit ...

opinions4u wrote: »

If there wasn't legislation in place, and a bank unilaterally followed a policy of paying 0.75% for everybody, they would attract no new money but would leak money out at the other end. The end result is insolvency.

How are the banks going to become insolvent when they paying out 0.75% to us for our money, and are getting at least 3% (probably more like 6%) when they lend that money out to others?
It doesn't matter whether they get any 'new' money in. They are 'coining it' on the capital they already have.

opinions4u

Old_Wrinkly wrote: »

opinions4u,
whilst I agree with the rest of your post (#10), I feel the need to comment on this bit ...



How are the banks going to become insolvent when they paying out 0.75% to us for our money, and are getting at least 3% (probably more like 6%) when they lend that money out to others?
It doesn't matter whether they get any 'new' money in. They are 'coining it' on the capital they already have.

The example I gave assumed one bank decided to go it alone with an "ethical" policy of not having introductory bonus rates. Let's say Santander for argument's sake.

They have a savings book of £50bn and a loan book of £50bn (numbers made up). This means they have the savings balances to fund the loan book.

They currently lose £5bn of savings a year, but re-attract it with their 3% rate for a year. So they end the year with a £50bn savings book and a £50bn loan book.

They then go ethical and pay everybody new/old alike 0.75%.

They would attract no new business but would still see an outflow of £5bn as some of their customers would continue to go elsewhere. Their loan book remains unchanged.

They end the year with a savings book of £45bn and a loan book of £50bn. They don't have the money to fund the outstanding loans that they have, so are technically insolvent.

Unless they can attract an extra £5bn at 0.75% from somewhere (or enter the wholesale markets, which isn't the sort of place banks want to be too reliant on these days).

So it's not about profitability of lending, it's about making sure that they haven't lent out more money than they actually have stashed in the proverbial safe!

Jegersmart

At the end of the day taxpayers fund *everything* - banks and governments do not actually produce or have any money as such. We will put up with the system until enough of us get together and change it....

cyclonebri1

opinions4u wrote: »

It's nothing to do with age. 90% of the population don't shop round. They chuck their money in and forget about it. They ignore direct mail. They ignore adverts in papers, web sites and on the telly. They ignore their friends telling them. They ignore the rate displayed on their screen. They refuse the "opportunity" to "review" their accounts in branch.

Most providers will simply move these customers from account old A to account sexy new B, if only they asked.

Now, if there was legislation that forced banks to pay the same rate to new and existing customers for similar products, and assuming my 90% figure is right, you'd move from the current position of 3% new account / 0.5% old account to something like 0.75% for everybody. Check out the maths, it's spot on.


If there wasn't legislation in place, and a bank unilaterally followed a policy of payying 0.75% for everybody, they would attract no new money but would leak money out at the other end. The end result is insolvency.

At the end of the day, I think asking people to look after their own money is not an unreasonable expectation for the adult population of the country. If they can't be bothered, then they should expect to receive less than they could have done.

90%, infact 100%, don't get "direct" mail
, the whole point of my rant.
Sorry chap for being late but I've just spotted your reply, sorry again but what garbage:mad:

Displayed on the screen? god you have to search the company archives to find the interest rates for for "old" accounts

Yep, thats the issue,you have to ask, they wouldn't dream of informing you.

Your thesis seems to indicate that the solvency of the banking industry is based on the lethargy of it's funders, :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

opinions4u

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

90%, infact 100%, don't get "direct" mail

That's strange, isn't it. Many providers send out annual account summaries with interest rate leaflets in. I've seen the posts on here stating "they never told me the rate had dropped" when I know for a fact a mailing has been sent to millions.

Many now send out letters saying "your bonus is ending" as well.

the whole point of my rant.

The whole point of your rant is that you expect to be nannied by commercial organisations with shareholders. The reason for their existing is to make money out of you, so yours is a flawed position to take, as you have discovered.

While I actually agree with your desire for a perfect world, I take a more pragmatic view on reality. It currently involves a reminder in Outlook, but it could easily be a diary note or similar.

Displayed on the screen? god you have to search the company archives to find the interest rates for for "old" accounts

It depends on the bank. Some will publish the rates within your online banking. The Halifax site gets you to previous rate in 5 clicks from the main site, 4 from the Savings front page - all of these clicks easily signposted on the top of the screen. Others may be better or worse than that.

Yep, thats the issue,you have to ask, they wouldn't dream of informing you.

You stated yourself that the staff member you spoke to pointed it out to you. While we don't know which bank and which account you had, it is possible that they've written to you at some stage and you've shredded it. Have you established when the rate became so poor? By all means name the bank and the account.

Your thesis seems to indicate that the solvency of the banking industry is based on the lethargy of it's funders,

No it doesn't. It states that if one bank took the approach you propose, leaving their competitors to act as they currently do, that bank would end up with severe problems.

cyclonebri1

opinions4u wrote: »

That's strange, isn't it. Many providers send out annual account summaries with interest rate leaflets in. I've seen the posts on here stating "they never told me the rate had dropped" when I know for a fact a mailing has been sent to millions.

Many now send out letters saying "your bonus is ending" as well.

The whole point of your rant is that you expect to be nannied by commercial organisations with shareholders. The reason for their existing is to make money out of you, so yours is a flawed position to take, as you have discovered.

While I actually agree with your desire for a perfect world, I take a more pragmatic view on reality. It currently involves a reminder in Outlook, but it could easily be a diary note or similar.

It depends on the bank. Some will publish the rates within your online banking. The Halifax site gets you to previous rate in 5 clicks from the main site, 4 from the Savings front page - all of these clicks easily signposted on the top of the screen. Others may be better or worse than that.

You stated yourself that the staff member you spoke to pointed it out to you. While we don't know which bank and which account you had, it is possible that they've written to you at some stage and you've shredded it. Have you established when the rate became so poor? By all means name the bank and the account.


No it doesn't. It states that if one bank took the approach you propose, leaving their competitors to act as they currently do, that bank would end up with severe problems.

Well we obviously disagree, strongly,
Maybe I'm old fashioned, (actually I'm not), but I have a strong belief in loyalty, obviously mis-placed in todays banking system.

I won't argue with you further, I've vented my frustrations and am not trying to change the world but I have to correct you on the highlighted bit, they did not point out anything to me untill after I had made an approach to move £12000 from a different account with them. Not the one that was paying the poor interest rate.

Old_Slaphead

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Maybe I'm old fashioned, (actually I'm not), but I have a strong belief in loyalty, obviously mis-placed in todays banking system.

I used to have. Loyalty, supporting locals building societies etc etc. Not any more. Not after seeing the way they exploit (other) customers and IMO overpay directors.

I take great delight in closing accounts and, especially in branch where I can say quite loudly that I'm moving money because I can get much better rates elsewhere.

It's very easy to keep track of savings accounts by using either a simple spreadsheet or a diary.

Loughton_Monkey

Whilst I'm an avid 'ranter' myself, I do find myself particularly sensitive to misplaced rants like this one.

I'm no lover of banks. But there is no 'extortion' going on here, and no 'preying on the elderly'. We have more than enough legislation about transparency and there are simply no excuses for anyone to 'forget' about the expiry of a 12 month deal. This isn't extortion, it's simply 'marketing' and getting new customers.

Every other business does it all the time. If you see Gordon's Gin in Sainsbury's "Reduced from £18 to £15 until end of July", then do not rant that the 20% price increase on 1st August is 'extortion'. It isn't.

As for old or 'vulnerable' people.... well.... our Nanny State Media does it all the time. When a 'Rogue Trader' pretends to replace your satellite dish when all he did was plug it back in, then that's a rip off. But it's just as much a rip-off to a 30 year old man as it is for a 60 year old woman, or an 80 year old blind widow.

When a signal failure happens on a train and people are left stranded on the train for 4 hours, then that's [probably] bad management. It should be exposed as such, but the fact that one of the occupants is pregnant has nothing to do with it. What do people expect? A little guy on every station for every departure? He sees a pregnant woman get on, and so telephones RailTrack to tell them "Make sure there's no signal failure on the 8:42 because there's a pregnant lady on it"????

I am over 60. If the bank wrote to me twice because of that, the second time in 'Large Print' I think I would be far more offended than if they didn't write to me at all.

Rant by all means. But rant about things properly!