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

BlindLeadingTheBlind

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?

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.

Oh my Archi Bald! Is this a bit of banker bashing I see! Now, how did you put it to me? "....it is clearly all one big, nasty, smelly conspiracy by the establishment against poor, defenseless (sic) consumers. Let's not get reality and facts get in the way of a bit of banker bashing."

jeystone

Gromitt wrote: »

I remember trying to open a HSBC account for their 5% current account and was told that they expected me to have a "full banking relationship with HSBC". I said that I would use the products from whichever bank offered the best at the time and not tie myself to a single bank. After the usual sales and marketing speak (including daft things like keeping all your money in the same bank makes things easier), they asked me if I wanted to cancel the application. I agreed.

Never tried them again since. I have opened a further 6 other current accounts with other banks however, and closed none.

HSBC sound like !!!!s...they are always trigger happy with the cifas fraud markers too, happy to label you a fraudster if you are the victim

John1993_2

Archi_Bald wrote: »

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.

Hopefully not too many customers have as wooly an understanding of the business as you do, although I fear you may not be alone.

Banks chose to offer free banking because it encouraged people to buy profitable services from them. They are now being discouraged from following this model, and so are less keen to offer people something for free which costs them money.

Banks are, I'm pleased to say, starting to show customers like you the door in ever greater numbers. This is a good thing. For years the profits I (and others) made in investment banking were being used to subsidise you using your debit card to buy a kebab. They also had to bail out the costs of others like you borrowing money and then "oh, no, whhat's happened" not managing to pay it back. I'd prefer not to do that any more than is strictly necessary.

Archi_Bald

Interesting that you know what my understanding of business is, although you have actually no clue about my education and business experience (hint: I have a Masters from INSEAD). You also have no clue what I buy with my debit card (hint: not kebabs), and you extremely rudely assume that I have borrowed money that I couldn't pay back (hint: my last borrowing was my mortgage which never once was in arrears and has been settled 8 years ago).

I am amazed to hear you claim that investment bankers bailed out retail bankers. One must wonder then why bailouts, of entire banking conglomerates, by the taxpayer became necessary.

Perhaps you should limit yourself to talk about matters you actually have facts for, and refrain from personal attacks.

anotheruser

I have a current account with HSBC and Santander...
HSBC was opened before Santander though.

JuicyJesus

jeystone wrote: »

you bankers are scumbags and this logic proves it

I don't think John1993 even works for a bank, nor would that automatically make him a scumbag. But he is right either way. The money for a lot of things people expect and demand from a bank has to come from somewhere, and their current/old business model of cross-selling is on its way out due to public pressure.

I'm not sure how it makes anyone involved a scumbag. It's basic business logic which applies to anyone running a business, from the CEOs of Lloyds and Barclays to the local self-employed plumber.

Archi_Bald wrote: »

I am amazed to hear you claim that investment bankers bailed out retail bankers. One must wonder then why bailouts, of entire banking conglomerates, by the taxpayer became necessary.

John1993 is wrong on that count. Investment banking of the sort usually referred to as such (as opposed to "investments" in the sense of transacting investment business for retail customers) is functionally separate in most banks from the retail side, and the retail sides of most banks are generally independently profitable excepting "one off" events like PPI. Investment banking was only "bailing out" the retail side in that there was a net profit betwixt the two.

Bailouts happened partially because of the investments side, partly from the retail side, partly just because the world economy was going to pot. HBOS for example built up an absolutely p*sspoor business lending portfolio, grounded in property development, which virtually no bank has any appetite for now for reasons which should be obvious considering I'm talking about it in the same sentence as HBOS and bailouts.

oldwiring

Perhaps with all that has happened over the last few years, we are seeing the start of a return to the old standards of banking.

The old standards meant that those who had banking arrangements, especially current accounts with more than one bank were regarded as a risk.

Hazzanet

oldwiring wrote: »

Perhaps with all that has happened over the last few years, we are seeing the start of a return to the old standards of banking.

The old standards meant that those who had banking arrangements, especially current accounts with more than one bank were regarded as a risk.

Perhaps.

With the recent card/payment service/internet banking outages that a couple of institutions have suffered from in the past years, I personally think it's wise to have more than one account each at separate banks/building societies. Sadly, for me, I don't feel I can get all I need from one provider so I've picked and chosen what I want from each.

Does that mean I should be regarded as a risk? With my previous history of managing several current accounts, probably not. More than one account doesn't necessarily indicate enhanced risk, especially where now, current accounts are proving a better place to stash savings (3% at Santander 123 and 5% at NW Flexdirect). Perhaps products ought to be better thought out and placed? It seems to me that banks and BSs are actively encouraging us to open multiple current accounts and surreptitiously 'float' money around the system to circumvent minimum income rules to get a good deal on our savings.

Am I making any of the banks any profit? Again, probably not, and if they want to send me on my way, they're perfectly entitled to do so. That said, if they charged a modest sum for their services, I'm inclined to say that I would be happy to pay it to forgo pushy sales and to get everything I need from a one stop shop.

While risking opening a previously healed wound (i.e. a discussion which was thrashed to death several times over on this forum), I think that the campaign against bank charges (and subsequently the mis-selling dramas) will push the banks towards a monthly fee model as the current model becomes more and more unsustainable.

datlex

I have 3 current accounts- 2 with smile. wages into one. bills from another. 1 with Barclays- use that for saved spends.

Archi_Bald

JuicyJesus wrote: »

I don't think John1993 even works for a bank, nor would that automatically make him a scumbag.

From what he posted, it seems fair to conclude he has been or is working as an investment banker.

John1993 wrote: »

......For years the profits I (and others) made in investment banking .......

JuicyJesus wrote: »

The money for a lot of things people expect and demand from a bank has to come from somewhere

I didn't contest that at all. Of course no business can operate without at least covering their cost base, and having sufficient funds to invest into their future so they can stay competitive. However, banks seem to assume they can just continue to rake in money from their customers by slapping higher charges onto their customers. Salaries, bonuses, staff levels, marketing campaigns, dividend payments, sports sponsorships etc continue unabated, as if there never had been any financial crisis caused by bankers and their overwhelming greed.

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Bailouts happened partially because of the investments side, partly from the retail side, partly just because the world economy was going to pot.

The world economy went to pot in the first instance mostly because bankers couldn't control their greed and thought they were invincable.

oldwiring wrote: »

The old standards meant that those who had banking arrangements, especially current accounts with more than one bank were regarded as a risk.

Yep, I bet some of the bankers would love to be able to control what people do with their own money, and have people shiver in fear of "their bank manager". Any customer who is as smart as, or smarter than, a banker is naturally a risk to the individual targets bankers have.

I am quite relaxed about the likelihood of a reversal to olden times - the consumer rights we have acquired over the last decade or so will only be strengthened in my view as the world continues to mend the aftermaths of the financial disasters the bankers created.