MSE News: MPs hit out at RBS and Lloyds over ATM access

System

I think the Treasury Select Committee should have far more important things to spend their time on. If they haven't got important stuff to deal with, then they should save tax payer's money and disband these expensive committees.

It is totally rediculous that MPs would get involved in what is a business decision for a bank.

opinions4u

dzug1 wrote: »

But it isn't a question of chance - it's a question of statistics, so I suspect that they have worked out that they are losing. If they were gaining they'd have kept quiet about it.

Over a period of time they may earn £1m in LINK income from other providers. They may pay out £800k to other LINK providers in the same period. Profit £200k.

Get rid of the £800k cost, profit £1m.

That £1m is then more than swallowed up by the costs of operating a high volume, low value account, but it makes the numbers look far better for shareholders.

tagq2

BAA1 wrote: »

It is totally rediculous that MPs would get involved in what is a business decision for a bank.

OK, but is it totally ridiculous that business owners should get involved in business decisions?

opinions4u

tagq2 wrote: »

OK, but is it totally ridiculous that business owners should get involved in business decisions?

Well I wouldn't expect them to ask for each individual shareholder to vote about ATM access on a poxy account that's a loss make.

tifo

antonia1 wrote: »

Banks are businesses .... If the government is worried about financial inclusion, they perhaps the government should cover the costs of free personal banking.

Didn't the govt already cover the cost of banks playing casino with our money?

If they were businesses like any other, why did they not go down as any business would?

Chrisblue1962

I you really really dislike the policy of RBS / Lloyds TSB restricting your useage of cashpoint machines, buy just ONE share in the bank you bank with e.g. Lloyds TSB or RBS. This then gives you voting rights as a shareholder.

Then, get somebody to propose a motion for the AGM that all account users will not be resticted re, access to their money from cashpoint machines and get somebody to "second" it. Then vote for that motion at the AGM...

You never know, it may work :j

opinions4u

tifo wrote: »

If they were businesses like any other, why did they not go down as any business would?

Because there were assets worth keeping and the Government could afford to buy them and hopes to make a profit out of them. They'll fail with Northern Rock (good bank), but the other places (including Northern Rock bad bank have potential.

Shareholders lost 100% of their money in Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley and 98%+ in RBS and LBG. Which is as it should be.

tagq2

opinions4u wrote: »

Well I wouldn't expect them to ask for each individual shareholder to vote about ATM access on a poxy account that's a loss make.

It is reasonable for a major shareholder to ask questions of a company it owns - it doesn't have to kickstart a vote on every minor issue, although when the major shareholder is also an unfettered majority voting shareholder then the outcome is predestined. It is also not required for a shareholder to run a company in such a way as to maximise short term profit (or even long term profit, though I would argue that eradicating forms of financial exclusion is profitable in the long term).

This isn't one of the responsible, privately-owned banks we're talking about. This is just the committee responsible for administering the policy of HM Treasury asking questions to those who manage one of HM Treasury's assets.

JuicyJesus

My response to this is the same as it was previous: if every single basic bank account customer left Lloyds and RBS overnight, they would be positively overjoyed, and that appears to be the end goal. The Treasury Select Committee are welcome to consider that as these are government assets, driving away loss-making customers (or at the very least reducing the level of that loss by reducing the amount spent on ATM interchange fees) is a good idea.

BBAs are only offered because the Government makes the big banks offer them. Were it up to the banks they would stop selling them as soon as they could. Lloyds and RBS have just hit upon one of the few tricks they have, which is to make their particular lossmaking-product-they-don't-want-to-sell worse than everyone else's.

dori2o

It's completely disgraceful.

The bank DOES make money on these accounts.

The interest rate for example on the step account from Natwest is 0%. They do not pay interest on credit balances on these accounts. BUT they will receive interest on these balances whilst they hold the money in your account.

The simple thing to do is to move accounts to a bank that does have ALL it's customers interests at heart, whether they be those who are well off, or those who live hand to mouth, day to day, who rely on these simple accounts.