Bank won't open a simple current account without closing another (in another bank)?

jamesd

I agree with you about what HSBC wants: simple pay in, direct debits and standing orders out and nothing much else.

I don't think that HSBC really is appropriate for customers who would qualify for Premier Service (I could if I wanted to). Too much chance of the security side of the house being unhappy with investment-related transactions that those who meet the account requirements are also more likely than usual to carry out.

Better to just pick a bank that doesn't suffer from multiple personality disorder between product and security teams from the outset.

henm2

You are probably right about the split personality side of things.

The main reason for the no dual banking policy of HSBC for current accounts is that they seem to regard anything other than a customer being primary banked with them (other than the Premier/Advance current account service) as not being profitable to them.

Thrugelmir

henm2 wrote: »

HSBC's no dual banking policy is as far as I know an internal policy and is not in their T & Cs issued to customers.

There's no obligation on any business to provide a service to a customer.

Once retail banking in the UK moves to monthly account fee model. Then they'll be mass closure of accounts.

Archi_Bald

henm2 wrote: »

The main reason for the no dual banking policy of HSBC for current accounts is that they seem to regard anything other than a customer being primary banked with them (other than the Premier/Advance current account service) as not being profitable to them.

By that logic, they would have to close the current accounts of all their customers who never go overdrawn and never keep much money in their accounts.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Once retail banking in the UK moves to monthly account fee model. Then they'll be mass closure of accounts.

That doesn't follow at all. Plenty of people are already paying actual monthly fees for their accounts. It's all a question of value for money.

Others are paying through the nose for overdrafts and charges. And yet others have substantial amounts lingering in 0% interest current account, and miserable interest rate savings accounts.

Apart from that, it's just another pack of lies when the bankers say they can't offer current accounts without charging a monthly fee for them.

jamesd

Archi_Bald wrote: »

By that logic, they would have to close the current accounts of all their customers who never go overdrawn and never keep much money in their accounts.

There are other profits to make, like debit card merchant fees. As well as cross-selling unsecured loans, mortgages, protection products and whatever other activities they can come up with.

Thrugelmir

Archi_Bald wrote: »

That doesn't follow at all. Plenty of people are already paying actual monthly fees for their accounts. It's all a question of value for money.

Wrong perspective. It's how the banks cover the cost of providing the service.

Ross McEwan new CEO of RBS, previously ran their retail division. Around 6 months go he was talking about the UK current account model and how he considered it unsustainable longer term. As the income from cross selling other products wasn't there to subsidise any longer.

Archi_Bald

Thrugelmir wrote: »

It's how the banks cover the cost of providing the service.

Exactly. Perhaps they should, at long last, be reviewing their costs and make some savings and adjustments there.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Ross McEwan new CEO of RBS, previously ran their retail division. Around 6 months go he was talking about the UK current account model and how he considered it unsustainable longer term. As the income from cross selling other products wasn't there to subsidise any longer.

It's so predictable what a banker will say. Especially one who is on a £1m+ salary and who has a gigantic pension pot - all financed by his customers. Doesn't really surprise me that he, and other bankers, say they need more money to run current accounts - but that doesn't mean they speak the truth, or that the answer is to take even more money off their customers.

JuicyJesus

Archi_Bald wrote: »

It's so predictable what a banker will say. Especially one who is on a £1m+ salary and who has a gigantic pension pot - all financed by his customers. Doesn't really surprise me that he, and other bankers, say they need more money to run current accounts - but that doesn't mean they speak the truth, or that the answer is to take even more money off their customers.

He's right though. Current accounts are a loss leader, used as a "gateway product" to more profitable areas like loans, mortgages and credit cards, or alternatively things like overdrafts which they charge money for. But with a growing public distaste for cross-selling and remuneration schemes for bank staff of any stripe, they're having to dial that back, so current accounts no longer work as a loss leader.

Archi_Bald

JuicyJesus wrote: »

He's right though. Current accounts are a loss leader, used as a "gateway product" to more profitable areas like loans, mortgages and credit cards, or alternatively things like overdrafts which they charge money for. But with a growing public distaste for cross-selling and remuneration schemes for bank staff of any stripe, they're having to dial that back, so current accounts no longer work as a loss leader.

Well my heart bleeds. How will they be funding their massive ad campaigns, advertising in branches, staff uniforms, shareholder dividends etc in future - - and how can they maintain their salaries and increases thereon?

It is quite a "funny" business model to pay your customers no, or minimal interest (like e.g. RBS and Natwest have been doing for years) whilst happily using their funds for lending. And then suddenly claim you need to charge them extra....it's all so incredibly transparent. And deeply disgusting, particularly at a time when many people have seen no, or just a minor, salary increase in years.

JuicyJesus

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Well my heart bleeds. How will they be funding their massive ad campaigns, advertising in branches, staff uniforms, shareholder dividends etc in future - - and how can they maintain their salaries and increases thereon?

Yes, it is rather a pressing concern for a business to pay their costs, market to new customers and make a profit.

I love how people think it's a really horrible thing that banks set out to make money. It's the raison d'etre of every business.

It is quite a "funny" business model to pay your customers no, or minimal interest (like e.g. RBS and Natwest have been doing for years) whilst happily using their funds for lending. And then suddenly claim you need to charge them extra....it's all so incredibly transparent. And deeply disgusting, particularly at a time when many people have seen no, or just a minor, salary increase in years.

That business model is what has been propping up free banking for years. The pipedream everyone has of a bank which pays lots on savings, costs little for lending, doesn't charge for anything and has excellent service which does everything anyone could ever need is completely unsustainable. With cross-selling now on its way out more or less, the pipedream gets further away and banks need to find ways to keep their income coming in (see above regarding it being the point of them.)

Those without savings have not been paying anything, if you can call a difference between the base rate or what other banks give and their savings rate "paying", and those with savings would do better to find a better deal from a different bank if they want more interest, rather than complaining about their current bank's lack of it.

I'm not sure how it's disgusting, especially. Virtually every good or service has gone up in price as of late, due to this big "recession" thing going on which you may have heard of, which coincidentally has also led to increased costs for banks in particular in terms of bad debt, fraud and also the level of try-it-on PPI complaints that are costing them dear in terms of manpower and admin work (admittedly precipitated by past mis-selling, but completely out of whack given the actual level of mis-selling that happened and that about half of all such complaints are from people who never had it.) I could use "my salary's gone up" to argue against an increase in cost for everything but it would still be nonsensical.