5% interest paying current accounts

ValiantSon

bp5678 wrote: »

Because so many banks are offering sign up perks. You'd make more taking advantage of the sign up perks such as £100 joining rewards (gained very quickly) than you would making a measly £8 or so in interest per month. I realise over a year £8 x 12 months = almost £100 but the £100 signing up rewards with some banks is a lot more instant (you can do this with several banks in a year and make a lot more).

Open a second account and switch that one. If you do this then you get the best of both.

ValiantSon

OceanSound wrote: »

What I mean is, even if there is a data breach at CHIP and your logon and password end up in the wrong hands, they (the culprits) wouldn't be able to do much with it other than see that you've paid for a train ticket, bought a coffee etc. etc.(worst case is they can see all your payee’s account details – although this is a concern it’s not the end of the world) Fraudsters wouldn't be able to setup a new payee and transfer out, because for that they would need additional security info/device. e.g. with HSBC you need key generator.

You are missing my point. I'm not talking about the risk of them committing fraud, I'm talking about the risk of them taking money legitimately that you then need unexpectedly. By allowing the app to decide how much to take you are surrendering control of your finances to an algorithm. That, in my opinion, is a pretty dumb thing to do.

OceanSound wrote: »

I wasn't saying you were saying they should promote it. When you said 'free access to your bank account' it implies 'access all areas', so I was highlighting with the HSBC app you are also giving some form of access (even though it may not be as much access as you are giving to CHIP, where you are giving your logon info at the start - which presumably will be held securely).

No it doesn't imply that. It implies exactly what it says, that they have free access to withdraw money from your account. As I've said, that's a pretty dumb thing to do.

OceanSound wrote: »

CHip is start-up, its attempting to tap (exploit) a niche-market. MSE is supporting them and making a few bob along the way as well. I must admit the promotional material could be more elaborate and tell customer what the risks are. It does up to a point. e.g. that CHIP is not covered by FSCS, but in the same breath it says 'don't worry Barlcays is covered through'.

Yes, I understand what is going on. My probem is that MSE is promoting an unsecure service that has significant questions about its suitability, even if the lack of FSCS protection is ignored. It is irresponsible of them to promote this. They maintain that they don't let their commercial interests affect the editorial content, but I'm not convinced by that when we have examples like this. The lack of arnings about the service is also alarming from a website that claims to have consumers' interests at heart.

The fact that Chip is a startup is not a good reason for MSE to promote it.

OceanSound wrote: »

Actually, the Bank CHIP use is Barclays (which is a FSCS guaranteed bank).

Yes, I know it is, but Chip do not have FSCS protection. The money in the account is not guaranteed in the same way as if they did.

OceanSound wrote: »

However it's unclear how this will protect the customer. Presumably if things go pear shaped the Money in Chip's barlcays account will go towards it's creditors first. i.e. there is no ring-fencing protecting the customers money.

Exactly, so the FSCS protection that Barclay's offers is not transferred to the Chip customer. The service Chip offers is not one that comes with FSCS protection.

OceanSound wrote: »

I'm not a fan of it either. However, when you say ‘taking control away from the account holder’ CHIP would argue their business model gives control to customers.

They can argue what they like, it doesn't mean that it is true. I'm frankly uninterested in what their marketing team have come up with: I'm much more interested in the facts.

It doesn't give control to customers at all; it gives control to an algorithm.

OceanSound wrote: »

For someone who doesn't have the time or inclination to squirrel away a few bob every week, it takes the task off their hands. It's saying ‘if you don't have the time/inclination to save-up for a holiday, car, the big-day (wedding)’ we will give you a leg-up (or push). I think, if someone is financially savvy or disciplined its probably not very useful, if not, could be a heaven-sent.

If someone caims that they don't have the time to move money from a current account to a savings account then they are either an idiot or a liar. I work pretty long hours and yet I manage to find the couple of minutes necessary to move my money around diferent accounts.

If someone doesn't have the inclination then they are definitely an idiot.

OceanSound wrote: »

I guess, this is dependent on whether you are more comfortable entering everything each time you wanna do a price comparison (for example) or handing this task to an automated system, where everything is already stored and you just click a button, off-it goes and gives you tailor made options (reminds me of a popular search engine showing ads depending on our browsing habits - so is this any different). Either way, if you get to choose, I don't really see an issue. i.e. I presume no one will force you to use open banking.

I have no intention of using open banking. My point was that Chip isn't about open banking, but rather seeks to exploit the regulations to make money out of them. That's fine, but it isn't a direct response to the intent of the open banking regulations. And I still think that the regulations are completely daft.

OceanSound wrote: »

For any newby wanting to see if CHIP is listed on the FCA register for ‘Account information sharing and/or Payment initiation’ activities, they would probably need to look at the principal firm's allowed activities. There was no 'hidden meaning' in what I said.

I didn't think there was, but I couldn't - and still can't - see how it was relevant to anything.

OceanSound wrote: »

CHIP also mentions this on their website:

Personally, I think as long as there is consent, and adequate info/awareness of what open banking entails, customers aren't pushed in to it, and always have the choice to stick with what they are familiar with, it shouldn't pose major issues.

Bu you still seem to be missing my point that it is irresponsible and inappropriate for MSE to be promoting the service.

OceanSound

ValiantSon wrote: »

You are missing my point. I'm not talking about the risk of them committing fraud, I'm talking about the risk of them taking money legitimately that you then need unexpectedly. By allowing the app to decide how much to take you are surrendering control of your finances to an algorithm. That, in my opinion, is a pretty dumb thing to do.

No!, customer is not 'surrendering control'. As you said yourself in post#27: "yes, I know that in theory they can get transactions reversed".

No it doesn't imply that. It implies exactly what it says, that they have free access to withdraw money from your account. As I've said, that's a pretty dumb thing to do.

Again, as you admitted in post#27 customer can reverse it as and when. I've seen CHIP at work, it will tell you how much it's going to withdraw and you have a grace period before the money is actually withdrawn from your bank account. You can stop the withdrawal if you want. That's pretty rock solid 'control'. I think you should at least become familiar with the service without being a 'nay-sayer' to innovation.

Yes, I understand what is going on. My probem is that MSE is promoting an unsecure service that has significant questions about its suitability, even if the lack of FSCS protection is ignored. It is irresponsible of them to promote this. They maintain that they don't let their commercial interests affect the editorial content, but I'm not convinced by that when we have examples like this. The lack of arnings about the service is also alarming from a website that claims to have consumers' interests at heart.
The fact that Chip is a startup is not a good reason for MSE to promote it.

I thought you said before that the editorial content (the HSBC news article) is separate to the promotional material. If you want the customer to be 'in full control' (in your view - by not delegating 'responsibility to an algorithm') then surely you should accept that the customer is smart enough to work out a duff promotion when they see it. The 'too good to be true' factor. e.g. If a customer is buying dog food ( without researching what the product is) because it says 'top breeders recommend it', who's fault is that?

Yes, I know it is, but Chip do not have FSCS protection. The money in the account is not guaranteed in the same way as if they did.

In the earlier post you said 'Furthermore, the savings account you would be sending money to via HSBC's app is most likely to be with an FSCS guaranteed bank, unlike Chip'.
Why 'most likely'? You don't know that. That's not a fact. You've made an assumption based on opinion. Yet, you keep insisting that you are only dealing with facts.

Exactly, so the FSCS protection that Barclay's offers is not transferred to the Chip customer. The service Chip offers is not one that comes with FSCS protection.

They are working on the FSCS protection. Anyway, seems like you want all the trimmings but without any of the risks.

They can argue what they like, it doesn't mean that it is true. I'm frankly uninterested in what their marketing team have come up with: I'm much more interested in the facts.

I think you are confusing 'facts' with your 'opinion'. You are clearly against innovation because you believe everyone (including you) will be forced to use this app to control your finances. You are thinking 'if I allow this to happen, what next?'. That, I'm afraid, is a slippery-slope argument.

It doesn't give control to customers at all; it gives control to an algorithm.

Again, this goes against your admission before. Customer has control to reverse the payment. In fact, customer can use the algorithm to see if he/she can afford to save that amount of money. If not, choose a different amount or stop the transfer all together.

If someone caims that they don't have the time to move money from a current account to a savings account then they are either an idiot or a liar. I work pretty long hours and yet I manage to find the couple of minutes necessary to move my money around diferent accounts.

If someone doesn't have the inclination then they are definitely an idiot.

hmmm, how's the view from your ivory-tower?

I have no intention of using open banking. My point was that Chip isn't about open banking, but rather seeks to exploit the regulations to make money out of them. That's fine, but it isn't a direct response to the intent of the open banking regulations. And I still think that the regulations are completely daft.

This is your opinion.

I didn't think there was, but I couldn't - and still can't - see how it was relevant to anything.

I've explained this to you already. To prevent repetition, I can only suggest you re-read that para. in post#31.

Bu you still seem to be missing my point that it is irresponsible and inappropriate for MSE to be promoting the service.

MSE promotes many services. You don't have to sign-up to them. If you think MSE has acted irresponsibly and inappropriately then do something productive about it. Write to Martin, start a Campaign, start a petition....Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.
Word of warning though. By being against innovation (due to your own personal beliefs - without doing anything to see the bigger picture), you are only encouraging the big banks to act like the gatekeepers of your data (your very own data).

ValiantSon

OceanSound wrote: »

No!, customer is not 'surrendering control'. As you said yourself in post#27: "yes, I know that in theory they can get transactions reversed".

Again, as you admitted in post#27 customer can reverse it as and when. I've seen CHIP at work, it will tell you how much it's going to withdraw and you have a grace period before the money is actually withdrawn from your bank account. You can stop the withdrawal if you want. That's pretty rock solid 'control'. I think you should at least become familiar with the service without being a 'nay-sayer' to innovation.

I thought you said before that the editorial content (the HSBC news article) is separate to the promotional material. If you want the customer to be 'in full control' (in your view - by not delegating 'responsibility to an algorithm') then surely you should accept that the customer is smart enough to work out a duff promotion when they see it. The 'too good to be true' factor. e.g. If a customer is buying dog food ( without researching what the product is) because it says 'top breeders recommend it', who's fault is that?

In the earlier post you said 'Furthermore, the savings account you would be sending money to via HSBC's app is most likely to be with an FSCS guaranteed bank, unlike Chip'.
Why 'most likely'? You don't know that. That's not a fact. You've made an assumption based on opinion. Yet, you keep insisting that you are only dealing with facts.

They are working on the FSCS protection. Anyway, seems like you want all the trimmings but without any of the risks.

I think you are confusing 'facts' with your 'opinion'. You are clearly against innovation because you believe everyone (including you) will be forced to use this app to control your finances. You are thinking 'if I allow this to happen, what next?'. That, I'm afraid, is a slippery-slope argument.

Again, this goes against your admission before. Customer has control to reverse the payment. In fact, customer can use the algorithm to see if he/she can afford to save that amount of money. If not, choose a different amount or stop the transfer all together.

hmmm, how's the view from your ivory-tower?

This is your opinion.

I've explained this to you already. To prevent repetition, I can only suggest you re-read that para. in post#31.

MSE promotes many services. You don't have to sign-up to them. If you think MSE has acted irresponsibly and inappropriately then do something productive about it. Write to Martin, start a Campaign, start a petition....Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.
Word of warning though. By being against innovation (due to your own personal beliefs - without doing anything to see the bigger picture), you are only encouraging the big banks to act like the gatekeepers of your data (your very own data).

What a tedious and ill-informed rant. You have made numerous assumptions and (deliberately or not) misrepresented what I said. I have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who cannot follow the basic tenets of reasoned debate: I'm out.