Santander 123 rate to be cut to 1.5%

joe134

Ashen wrote: »

May I suggest, joe1234, if you want to keep criticising bankers and banks at every opportunity, that you move all of your money to one of the 'ethical banks'.

You then won't have to deal with those that accept the logic that banks such as Santander operate to maximise their profits and not their customers - like most businesses.

No such thing as an ethical bank, as Co-op proved.
Unlike any other business, banks are a Cartel.
I use any bank , they do not use me.
I have closed umpteen bank accounts, not because of ethics, because it suited me.
With age comes wisdom.
The £75k rule prohibits me from putting ALL my brass in any one bank. as you suggest:-)
Read my posts, I do not criticise banks at every turn.
I do not knock banks , I knock the Top Bankers in charge.
They make the rules, we abide by them, as in this case.
stay or leave, I'm staying, because it suits me.
Been with Hsbc for 65 years, even though I criticise them.
I have been in business nearly all my working life, and if I acted like some banks, I wouldn't have survived.

joe134

eskbanker wrote: »

Go on then, I'll bite - what actual crimes are you accusing them of? Not all the kneejerk tabloid panto villain stuff about "they caused the crash, they brought the economy to its knees, yada, yada" but real and specific criminal acts....

There are top posters on here that would not believe the 123 rate was about to drop UNTIL they read it in A paper.(not the DM) where it was first mooted.
Still don't about the other drops on the way.
Rumours:-)

PPI;nearly all
Libor; Barclays mainly
Money laundering; HSBC(.and Tax avoidance schemes,for the rich,but, not exactly illegal)
To name but criminal acts. 3.
You are educated, and don't rely on papers, neither do I.
I go by the facts.They were all Sanctioned from above, and part of their overall business strategy.
The investment side, subsidised the banking side, like the 123 loss leaders.That's why they are linked and cannot be taken in isolation.
I don't blame the banks for the crash, never have, they just assisted it to happen, that's why they had to be bailed out, and several still are vulnerable according to the last stress test.
They shouldn't have been allowed to borrow to lend( Northern Rock) without colateral.
They still shouldn't be allowed to borrow at such a cheap rate, thanks to the stupid Gov, and still pay themselves hyper bonus', which is the grievance of most people'.
I personally couldn't care that San123 is dropping it's rates, I knew it was on the cards .et.al, but to blame the 0.25% base rate drop( which was a mistake on Carneys part) as the reason is sanctimonious claptrap.
The old saying .
There's Lies,damned lies, and Statistics

The list is longer, but that's the abridged version.
I'm thick skinned so feel free to go for it.:-)

eskbanker

joe134 wrote: »

PPI;nearly all
Libor; Barclays mainly
Money laundering; HSBC(.and Tax avoidance schemes,for the rich,but, not exactly illegal)
To name but criminal acts. 3.

So by your own admission the last one wasn't illegal - are you suggesting that PPI misselling was illegal and if so, what's your contention as to why the tens of thousands involved haven't been convicted of any crime, is it all some establishment conspiracy?

In the context of Libor (as per http://www.fsa.gov.uk/library/communication/pr/2012/070.shtml), what evidence do you have that there was actually criminal activity and if there were criminal acts then on what basis would you contend that CEOs were directly enough involved to be prosecuted?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting that the Square Mile is exclusively populated by angels (just like any other industry), but conversely don't subscribe to the lynch mob mentality that bays for blood without adequate justification, so making accusations against named individuals without evidence of specific criminal acts is dangerous territory. CEOs have to accept corporate accountability and responsibility for what happens on their watch (hence the ones you name stepping down), but that's not the same as being legally liable for any crimes committed by their employees.

joe134

eskbanker wrote: »

So by your own admission the last one wasn't illegal - are you suggesting that PPI misselling was illegal and if so, what's your contention as to why the tens of thousands involved haven't been convicted of any crime, is it all some establishment conspiracy?

In the context of Libor (as per http://www.fsa.gov.uk/library/communication/pr/2012/070.shtml), what evidence do you have that there was actually criminal activity and if there were criminal acts then on what basis would you contend that CEOs were directly enough involved to be prosecuted?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting that the Square Mile is exclusively populated by angels (just like any other industry), but conversely don't subscribe to the lynch mob mentality that bays for blood without adequate justification, so making accusations against named individuals without evidence of specific criminal acts is dangerous territory. CEOs have to accept corporate accountability and responsibility for what happens on their watch (hence the ones you name stepping down), but that's not the same as being legally liable for any crime.

1;;HSBC has confirmed it is to pay US authorities $1.9bn (£1.2bn) in a settlement over money laundering, the largest paid in such a case.

This is illegal, tax avoidance isn't please read what I wrote, not your interpretation, it was in two parts.in brackets.

2;; Lloyds Banking Group's decision to seti
aside £3.2bn to compensate customers who were mis-sold payment protection insurance has exposed the full extent of a scandal dating back more than a decade. .
To me PPI was illegal, and started again from the top, the staff just carried out instructions, and are still being forced to do the hard sell, which is not illegal.

3;;
During the past three years Barclays Bank, JP Morgan, Swiss bank UBS, Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutsche Bank have all been fined by financial regulators for this practice, which is seen as market manipulation and corrosive to trust in the financial markets.
In August 2015, former city trader Tom Hayes was convicted of conspiracy to defraud for manipulating Libor. He was jailed for 14 years a sentence that had since been cut to 11 years.
Don't tell me the Top men,CEO's, who I won't name didn't know what was going on, but the traders took the hit.

I don't think I need cite any more proof..
You have your interpretation of what's legal, I differ, not for the first time, and probably not the last.
I rest my case, even if I copied and pasted them all from well known and reliable sources..
I always do my homework before I make a statement.
As a Ex Company Director of my own company for years, the buck stopped with me, and it should with any CEO, but for some reason, not bankers.
You wonder why Bankers are so disliked, and not trusted..
AND , just for good measure.
GET this.
Santander Bank fined $10 million for illegal overdraft practices.

The list is endless, but, I think I have given you enough to go at.
No doubt you will be in denial, like some others I could mention.
YOU did ask:-)

badger09

joe134 wrote: »

Perhaps I should while I can:-)
Aegean sounds nice, this time year:-).

It's fabulous.

Come on in, the water (and the retsina/beer/ouzo) is lovely:T

joe134

badger09 wrote: »

It's fabulous.

Come on in, the water (and the retsina/beer/ouzo) is lovely:T

Might just take your reccomendation, never been their on holiday, only visited in the Navy days, way before going abroad on holiday was for the common working chap.
Can always cash in one of my 123 a/c's:beer:

eskbanker

joe134 wrote: »

CEO's, who I won't name

But that's my point, your comment that I was responding to was specifically that "Bob Diamond, Fred the Shred et.al should be behind bars now". Neither of the two you named were associated with HSBC or Santander by the way, and for that matter neither employed Tom Hayes....

And yes, all the fines you refer to are a matter of public record but (a) they don't necessarily signify illegal activity as such and (b) for any that did, it's not as simple as jailing an entire chain of command up to the top of a company, the law doesn't work like that. Are you suggesting that, say, the CEO of Tesco should be jailed if a checkout person has their fingers in the till?

As I say, I'm not trying to defend an industry here, just offering a counter-argument to the viewpoint that a whole raft of CEOs should be jailed as a result of actions by others within their organisations (or even other organisations!).

joe134 wrote: »

You have your interpretation of what's legal, I differ

Well if you do have evidence that named CEOs knew of illegal activities, then I'm sure the CPS would be delighted to hear from you....

metrobus

I have a Santander 123 current account.I also have a 123 fixed rate bond and a Santander fixed rate cash ISA.

If I close my 123 current account will I still qualify for interest on the other two accounts?

YorkshireBoy

metrobus wrote: »

I have a Santander 123 current account.I also have a 123 fixed rate bond and a Santander fixed rate cash ISA.

If I close my 123 current account will I still qualify for interest on the other two accounts?

Yes you will. Does that concur with your view, having referred to your respective T&Cs?

metrobus

T&Cs do not refer to the situation.