2015 - No fee bank accounts. Where are they?

absolutereturn

colsten wrote: »

Neither myself nor anyone else has said, as far as I am aware, that it doesn't cost anything to run MSE, Google, Facebook, etc. . They finance the "free" services by income they make in some other way. MSE, for instance, make the vast amount of their money from referrals, as they declare in their "How this site is funded" article, and it is ver clever to allow free access to the site and the site's forum, as this increases the opportunity for MSE to make money.

It is you who - quite absurdly - keeps arguing that providing current accounts cost nothing / next to nothing. Although it seems you might now be making some sort of a u-turn and arguing banks should be funding no-charge current accounts from other income. This is very different from claiming there's no cost to providing current accounts.

Hardly any point arguing, is there?

I didn't say it doesn't cost anything to run current accounts, what I said is that, once the systems are in place, adding additional users to the system doesn't add much to the cost, and that those users can potentially become users of the more profitable services of the bank.

Banks not only make enough money from their more profitable activities to fund current accounts, they also benefit from having your money, pooled together with everyone else's, however, it's not my mission in life to educate you guys about the inner workings of the financial sector. I have posted up enough examples to back up my arguments. If you still choose to believe that banks should charge for the privilege of having your money to play with, well, it's your opinion and we're all entitled to ours.

Have a Merry Christmas:xmastree:

colsten

absolutereturn wrote: »

I didn't say it doesn't cost anything to run current accounts, what I said is that, once the systems are in place, adding additional users to the system doesn't add much to the cost, and that those users can potentially become users of the more profitable services of the bank.

I note that you are back-peddling now.

absolutereturn wrote: »

it's not my mission in life to educate you guys about the inner workings of the financial sector.

Phew, I am really grateful for that as I wouldn't want to be badly misinformed.

absolutereturn wrote: »

If you still choose to believe that banks should charge for the privilege of having your money to play with, well, it's your opinion and we're all entitled to ours.

Where have I ever said that "banks should charge for the privilege of having my money to play with"? Only point I argued was that there is a cost to providing current accounts, which both you and some others have poo-pooed. You can continue to do so until the cows come home - the fact remains that current accounts do cost money to provide. How they are funded is an entirely different matter.

NB. I am the holder of some 20-odd current accounts, all of which either come with no charge, or with sufficient benefits to warrant any charge.

mgdavid

For the OP - from today's BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35168705
:-)

knack92

List of accounts from the BBC article linked to above:

Kathiecarlos

This info has been a great help.

PeacefulWaters

Issuing a typical ATM / debit card costs around £3. Basic account customers are more likely to lose or damage their card (source: several thousand days working in front line banking).

When that card is used to withdraw cash from a supermarket's competitor ATM it costs the bank issuing the card around 30p (my figure here is a little dated). Half the amount if a high street competitor ATM is used.

The average balance of a typical low end basic account is c£250, compared to c£2,000 in a "proper" current account. This, at an interest margin of 2% will generate £5 a year in income for the bank.

Mandatory mailings such as statements, FSCS coverage, amendments to T&Cs, failed payments etc cost around £1 a pop.

Other free services such as interactions with staff, branch, call centre and fraud overheads etc - no idea.

But there is no way that banks will do anything but lose money on basic accounts. The customers who use them don't save and can't borrow.

I think the supermarket analogy above is fair. Equally, there's merit to the view "we bailed them out, they owe us". Although looking at the list there are many banks and building societies that "we" the taxpayer didn't bail out.

And some that were bailed out but have returned that money and more over the past eight years.