What's trickling down on my back

DiggerUK

antrobus wrote: »

But the report cited clearly states;
The European Commission estimated the average account revenue per consumer in 2004 in 20 EU countries. They found that the UK had the fifth highest account revenue per consumer, below Luxembourg, Italy, Holland and Austria.Anything else you'd like to get wrong?

I source my claim from page 8, section 1.7. of the OFT report, which is a discovered fact, not an estimate.
Were do you source your estimated claim from, it's a long report.

michaels wrote: »

So a 2004 report by the European Commission had a different result from a 2006-8 report by the OFT......

Could be a variance, not a difference, based on facts discovered, not estimates invented.
..._
..._

Generali

FWIW, the OFT agree with me.

In essence, the OFT believes that the market may be stuck in an equilibrium that does not work well for many consumers. A significant number of consumers do not know how much they will
effectively pay in bank fees or how individual elements in the charging structure will be implemented, either before or after they are incurred. This limited understanding of key account elements, combined with low confidence in switching, means that the banks have less incentive to provide better offers on insufficient funds charges and interest. Without better offers from banks, however, consumers have little incentive to switch.

Consumers lose in two ways. A minority lose out significantly, but ultimately everyone suffers if the banks have little incentive to compete vigorously by providing better offers on key elements of their current accounts.

In the OFT’s view, the status quo is not satisfactory. Markets generally work well for consumers where there is full and effective competition between suppliers, and consumers are able to make informed choices. In the coming months we will discuss our findings and the most appropriate next steps with the banking industry and interested stakeholders. It may be that we can secure agreement on measures that will bring the necessary clarity, transparency and consumer empowerment to assist in making the PCA market function efficiently. We will also need to consider, however, whether other measures, ranging from improved self-regulation to enforcement action or a reference of the market to the Competition Commission, may be appropriate and proportionate.

I genuinely don't understand why this is so unpopular: the OFT is trying to make banking cheaper and charging simpler. I guess having the poor (and as the reports states, charges are almost entirely paid by the poor) pay for your 'free' banking is better than paying for it yourself. I find that a pretty immoral way to think personally but then I'm a bankster so obviously scum in this oversimplified world of stereotyping.

antrobus

DiggerUK wrote: »

I source my claim from page 8, section 1.7. of the OFT report, which is a discovered fact, not an estimate.
Were do you source your estimated claim from, it's a long report.

Could be a variance, not a difference, based on facts discovered, not estimates invented.
..._
..._

Page 8 section 1.7 states:-

A recent report by the European Commission shows that the UK banking sector has one of the highest levels of current account gross income per consumer in Europe.

Page 49 Box 3.17 International Comparisons states

The European Commission estimated the average account revenue per consumer in 2004 in 20 EU countries. They found that the UK had the fifth highest account revenue per consumer, below Luxembourg, Italy, Holland and Austria.

Note that it says "one of the highest" or the "fifth highest". (And thus both these statements are perfectly consistent with one another.) So to state that "UK banking made the biggest gross of all banks in Europe" would be incorrect. Fifth isn't first.

You've misread the OFT report and made the common mistake of thinking it meant what you wanted it to mean, rather than what it does mean. You eyes no doubt lit up like a Christmas tree when you saw the word 'highest' and you failed to notice the qualifaction 'one of the'.

P.S. If somebody cites a direct quote from an online document it isn't difficult to find it on that document using the search function. Just a hint.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

FWIW, the OFT agree with me.

I genuinely don't understand why this is so unpopular: the OFT is trying to make banking cheaper and charging simpler. I guess having the poor (and as the reports states, charges are almost entirely paid by the poor) pay for your 'free' banking is better than paying for it yourself. I find that a pretty immoral way to think personally but then I'm a bankster so obviously scum in this oversimplified world of stereotyping.

Quite. As the OFT report makes very plain in its Conclusions, "there seems to be a significant cross subsidisation from those consumers who incur insufficient funds charges to those who do not; and to a considerable extent this is from socially vulnerable, low income and low saving consumers to higher income, higher saving ones" and that a "minority of consumers are losing out significantly in financial terms".

So people like DiggerUK (and me, for that matter) who don't pay bank charges are being subsidised by the less financially astute who are getting clobbered for 'insufficient funds charges'. I can obviously see why those who benefit from such arrangements would be happy to see them continue, but it would be rather morally dubious to argue that this minority of low income customers should continue to suffer significant financial losses in order to permit it to continue.

DiggerUK

I mean to say, what is the loony left BBC up to again, allowing all these comments to appear attacking the principle of having to pay for our bank accounts.

"Cor blimey governor you will get Diggsy uk up in arms again demanding to know what we are paying the licence fee for."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19242745
..._