Time to end free banking? Poll help needed

jjlandlord

Lokolo wrote: »

How would it be beneficial to a sensible bank customer? It might not. I know I wouldn't benefit if those sort of charges came in, I currently get everything I need and don't pay a single thing to the bank. But then again, I don't just think about me.

Which means that sensible persons would in effect subsidize the overdraft of less sensible ones... QED.

What I would like to see explained is why it would be a "good thing" for that to be the case?
People should aim at avoiding overdraft and at sensibly managing their finances. They should not get encouragement to indulge in bad practices.

Mrs_pbradley936

A monthly fee with "goodies". Such as free access to airport lounges, free travel insurance for 31 days per trip, free RAC or AA assistance. Some banks already use this for high turnover accounts so should be easy to roll out to most.

HeadAboveWater

No change. I've no charges to pay and I'm not getting any interest.

Option maybe for a monthly fee for those who want extras like Mrs pbradley936 suggests, but also includes any overdraft fees.

I completely disagree with paying a 'small' fee for every transaction. That's more I guess for business accounts but even then it's scandalous what they charge.

WestonDave

The first major problem is that most turkeys won't vote for Christmas - so those who currently get subsidised by others paying penalties etc are unlikely to vote for a more equitable distribution of banks revenue raising! You'd almost be better having a two part poll, firstly would you support a change to "free" banking or not. Secondly assuming free banking were to be abolished which of the options below would you prefer. At least that way you gain some data from the "turkeys" (I include myself in that before anyone gets offended!)

The other problem is that "transparent" charges will be anything but and will make comparison much harder unless the charges are set at "cost". It will end up like a lot of other utility type contracts where you need a degree in spreadsheet design to work out which combination of annual fee, interest, and individual transaction charges works out best for me. For example at what level of balance/activity does an annual fee of £25 plus 3% interest and 20p per direct debit become better/worse than £50 fee 4% interest and 25p per direct debit.

You maybe need an option for an APACS set standard fee per item so that the charges are comparable across the sector with only interest and/or annual fees being individual to banks.

pumpkin_soup

fee free with minimum monthly pay-in, or minimum average balance (this is how First Direct do it, with both minimums set at £1500).

Marisco

Lokolo wrote: »

The numbers don't have to be that, they were just examples of the sort of charging structure that could be done.

How would it be beneficial to a sensible bank customer? It might not. I know I wouldn't benefit if those sort of charges came in, I currently get everything I need and don't pay a single thing to the bank. But then again, I don't just think about me.

Why should I pay charges, when I don't now? Why should I pay for folk who cannot manage their accounts without using the overdraft, just so they can pay less? They should learn to manage their affairs better, than expect everyone to pay charges to cover them! I think it's a dreadful idea, and if it comes in, will move my accounts to someone who doesn't charge!

Linton

Marisco wrote: »

Why should I pay charges, when I don't now? Why should I pay for folk who cannot manage their accounts without using the overdraft, just so they can pay less? They should learn to manage their affairs better, than expect everyone to pay charges to cover them! I think it's a dreadful idea, and if it comes in, will move my accounts to someone who doesn't charge!

For the bank to provide computers, branches, cash machines, help desks etc costs money. That money can only come from the customers. Banking cannot be really free, someone somewhere is paying for it.

You are paying charges by not receiving the interest that the bank is earning from the money you hold with them. You are paying charges by receiving a lower rate of interest on your savings than would otherwise be the case. You are paying charges because business customers are charged and they add in those costs to the cost of the goods you buy.

The trouble with all this hidden charging is that there is no way to compare the efficiency of individual banks. So there is little market pressure on banks to become more efficient. So, if people paid directly for the service they used they would overall be better off.

mr_fishbulb

Linton wrote: »

The trouble with all this hidden charging is that there is no way to compare the efficiency of individual banks. So there is little market pressure on banks to become more efficient. So, if people paid directly for the service they used they would overall be better off.

That's putting a lot of faith into the banks not using the introduction of paid-for banking as a way to increase their charges overall.

Linton

mr_fishbulb wrote: »

That's putting a lot of faith into the banks not using the introduction of paid-for banking as a way to increase their charges overall.

People would migrate to the banks with lowest charges which would lead to a general downward pressure on charges. This cant happen now because the charges are hidden.

The only way the banks could avoid this would be to collude amongst themselves not to undercut each other. If it happened it would be pretty obvious, and such cartel arrangements are highly illegal.

missprice

I don't care if the banks charge fees
so long as I can go back to being paid in cash every week:p

Yes I realise thats never going to happen.
as for banks providing branches and ATMs and phone banking costing money, well they been doing that for years and they still made vast profits until the crash

Cash wages is the way to go:T