Time to move your money from Barclays

rb10

callum9999 wrote: »

Why is Nationwide any safer than Barclays? Building Societies aren't immune to problems - several of them have merged and been taken over in the last few years due to them heading towards collapse/financial difficulty.

Nationwide - and other building societies - won't get caught up in some of the difficulties that the banks have faced this week.

I don't know of any building society that has sold derivatives to small businesses - so whilst Lloyds, HSBC, Barclays & RBS/Natwest are in trouble over that, I reckon the building society sector is safe.

As for the Libor-fixing that Barclays have been fined for, and RBS/Natwest & HSBC are being investigated for, it's my understanding that under the Building Societies Act, they couldn't even get close to this type of activity, even if they had the intention of fixing rates.

Building societies tend to have stronger solvency ratios than the banks.

Again, under the Building Societies Act, they have a Wholesale Funding Limit, which ensures that building societies have sufficient retail funding (i.e. our savings). This is more stable, so keeps the societies stronger.

Building societies are exempt from the recent 'ring-fencing' rules announced by the ICB/George Osbourne, since their structures tend to already fit with the requirements. (Admittedly, the banks will get here too, but not until the end of the decade).

How many more reasons do you want?

CLAPTON

rb10 wrote: »

Nationwide - and other building societies - won't get caught up in some of the difficulties that the banks have faced this week.

I don't know of any building society that has sold derivatives to small businesses - so whilst Lloyds, HSBC, Barclays & RBS/Natwest are in trouble over that, I reckon the building society sector is safe.

As for the Libor-fixing that Barclays have been fined for, and RBS/Natwest & HSBC are being investigated for, it's my understanding that under the Building Societies Act, they couldn't even get close to this type of activity, even if they had the intention of fixing rates.

Building societies tend to have stronger solvency ratios than the banks.

Again, under the Building Societies Act, they have a Wholesale Funding Limit, which ensures that building societies have sufficient retail funding (i.e. our savings). This is more stable, so keeps the societies stronger.

Building societies are exempt from the recent 'ring-fencing' rules announced by the ICB/George Osbourne, since their structures tend to already fit with the requirements. (Admittedly, the banks will get here too, but not until the end of the decade).

How many more reasons do you want?

the UK banks are effectively guarenteed by the UK government which has the ability (and proven track record) to print as much money as it takes.

far far more BS have become insolvent than banks


in any event if you are a saver with less than 85k per institution you are perfectly safe.

the BS have the same low morals as the banks only less opportunity to exploit the public

does the CEO of Nationwide deserve £2m in remuneration ?

rb10

CLAPTON wrote: »

far far more BS have become insolvent than banks

Even if you measure it in terms of absolute numbers, there is not a great difference between the two.

But the failures of RBS and Northern Rock are on a rather larger scale than Cheshire Building Society.

CLAPTON wrote: »

the BS have the same low morals as the banks only less opportunity to exploit the public

Would be very interested to know how you have gathered this opinion, since it doesn't fit with the way that most building societies operate.

randomnut

CLAPTON wrote: »

the UK banks are effectively guarenteed by the UK government which has the ability (and proven track record) to print as much money as it takes.

far far more BS have become insolvent than banks


in any event if you are a saver with less than 85k per institution you are perfectly safe.

the BS have the same low morals as the banks only less opportunity to exploit the public

does the CEO of Nationwide deserve £2m in remuneration ?

I think you're confusing insolvent building societies with ones which have merged or have been taken over by others. They are mostly smaller, regional building societies.

Yes although the government guarantees your money in case a bank fails, there is always the aggro of having to claim and actually get your money back. I know this from having some money in an Icesave account and when it collapsed it wasn't exactly swift getting my money back.

I'd be interested to hear why the Building Societies have the 'same low morals' as shareholder driven banks. I've not once had any information to suggest Nationwide had anything but our mutual benefit at heart. No shareholders means no ingrained greed and constant pressure to post amazing results (real or fake) to keep the share price high.

I guess it comes down to your own personal preference. Keep your money in an institution which lies to its customers, lies to its shareholders, lies to the stock market and fiddles its rates and is only interested in maximum profits and posting maximum results to keep their share price high, or put your money into a place which does not have to answer to shareholders and is not allowed to by law be involved in such risky practices as Barclays has been.

I think the entire banking system needs an overhaul but I am confident that in my eyes, my cash is with one of the best of a mostly corrupt and damaged system.

BugsyBrowne

abaxas wrote: »

Dont take a risk with a business that is involved in fraud.

Choice is yours if you wish to deal with criminals. Be honest and move your money elsewhere.

I am quite happy to keep at Barclays because quite honestly I don't give a monkies what they have done as it hasent effected me one bit, and for the Barclays customers who now leave they won't give a to*s if you leave either As your just an 8 digit number to them like you'll be with any other bank.

rb10

BugsyBrowne wrote: »

for the Barclays customers who now leave they won't give a to*s if you leave either As your just an 8 digit number to them like you'll be with any other bank.

I imagine that they keep a close eye on the numbers of customers transferring their accounts elsewhere ... if that number rises this week, then I am sure they will take note.

It depends if you're happy to provide profits to a company that lies and manipulates rates.

randomnut

BugsyBrowne wrote: »

As your just an 8 digit number to them like you'll be with any other bank.

Any other *bank* maybe. Given that i've recently received my AGM pack requesting me to vote on how Nationwide operate for the next year, the customers are (albeit slightly) more than an 8 digit number

randomnut

rb10 wrote: »

It depends if you're happy to provide profits to a company that lies and manipulates rates.

This.

Although I initially just got fed up with their Indian call centres making mistakes due to the language barrier, I am certainly glad i'm not supporting a company who think it is OK to behave in that way.

It is as$-hattery like that which caused the last financial crisis and Barclays and the other banks have firmly replaced their cowboy hats and are ye-ha'ing us right into another.

Interestingly I have just got off the phone with Nationwide ordering another card reader and asked about if they have been affected by the recent troubles with natwest/rbs and Barclays being in the dock again. They said they have been literally inundated with new customers. The transfers team are rushed off their feet. Not surprised, really.

I think natwest and barclays have some grovelling to their shareholders to do...

alig1

Account holders in Nationwide should consider moving your money from Nationwide if the executive bonuses proceed and write to let them know that you will do so. This is supposed to be a mutual company.

rb10

alig1 wrote: »

Account holders in Nationwide should consider moving your money from Nationwide if the executive bonuses proceed and write to let them know that you will do so. This is supposed to be a mutual company.

But where would you move it to?

Barclays? To help support their next round of rate-fixing?

Natwest? Where it'll get lost in the ether that is their broken computer system?

Lloyds/HSBC? Thought to be next in line for rate-fixing fines?

Yes, the Nationwide executives are in line for large bonuses ... but how many directors of successful companies of Nationwide's size do not receive substantial bonuses? It's something that comes with the job.

What have the Nationwide directors done (or not done) for their members this year that means they do not deserve a bonus payment?