Banks may have to give loyal customers better interest rates - MSE News

jimjames

dealer_wins wrote: »

Do Tescos have to give me cheaper groceries, and Primark cheaper clothes then, and the London tube cheaper tickets, or is this just more bank bashing.

Exactly. I can choose to shop at Lidl, Tesco or Waitrose and pay the prices at each. My choice, if I want to pay more then I can do so. It does seem a bit too much spoonfeeding with FCA and banks when people are perfectly happy to spend their time on activities like watching trashy TV but not spend a few minutes sorting their finances.

ValiantSon

MK62 wrote: »

Yes I know that, I have one.....

The full rate cut of 0.25% plus a further reduction of 0.1% was applied across the board.

The approach was then not the same when rates rose again, only part of the BoE 0.25% rise was applied across the board, 0.15%.
To get the full rise, you had to apply for a new account with a better bonus rate.....except the very next day they then dropped the bonus rate by.....0.15%, so you had to wait for the next bonus rise and then apply for another account.

It's all very tedious tbh.......

Actually, what you are describing is equality of treatment with rate rises too. Tesco are not obliged to increase their interest rates just because the base rate has been increased. They chose to introduce a 0.15% rise, which was applied across all accounts, and also chose to reduce the bonus rate they paid on new accounts. There is nothing unfair about what they have done.

MK62

ValiantSon wrote: »

Actually, what you are describing is equality of treatment with rate rises too. Tesco are not obliged to increase their interest rates just because the base rate has been increased. They chose to introduce a 0.15% rise, which was applied across all accounts, and also chose to reduce the bonus rate they paid on new accounts. There is nothing unfair about what they have done.

Nor did I say it was unfair (though on balance I think it is...:p)
I said it was tedious......

They are also not obliged to decrease their interest rates just because the base rate has been decreased either.....but they do...;).....

However I suppose it would be unfair to single Tesco out .....plenty of other banks operate in a similar fashion. Maybe it's time the FCA did put some safeguards in place.....

ValiantSon

MK62 wrote: »

Nor did I say it was unfair (though on balance I think it is...:p)
I said it was tedious......

You certainly implied that it was unreasonable:

MK62 wrote: »

The approach was then not the same when rates rose again, only part of the BoE 0.25% rise was applied across the board, 0.15%.
To get the full rise, you had to apply for a new account with a better bonus rate.....except the very next day they then dropped the bonus rate by.....0.15%, so you had to wait for the next bonus rise and then apply for another account.

I completely disagree that it is unfair or unreasonable. Banks are companies whose aim is to make a profit; they are not charities or NGOs who are there to provide a public service.

MK62 wrote: »

They are also not obliged to decrease their interest rates just because the base rate has been decreased either.....but they do...;).....

So what? You are still missing the fundamental point that they are a business and their objective is to make the most profit that they can. Indeed, they are charged with doing that under their fiduciary duty. If the market allows for them to reduce rates then they have every right to do so.

MK62 wrote: »

However I suppose it would be unfair to single Tesco out .....plenty of other banks operate in a similar fashion. Maybe it's time the FCA did put some safeguards in place.....

Safeguards??? What harm are you expecting to be protected from?

I'm sorry, but you are showing a real failure of understanding about how free markets work, and the nature of capitalism. The FCA is a regulator. They are charged with ensuring that the banks operate within the law and do not do anything to harm or discriminate against customers. You are not harmed by them reducing interest rates: you may be disgruntled, but you are not harmed.

Terry_Towelling

As MK62 stated - all very tedious.

It must be the hot weather. So much bickering and so many inferences of x, y and z being drawn when x, y and z probably weren't implied in the first place.

Perhaps we shouldn't be too critical of banks (or any other companies) seeking to maximise their profits and creating shareholder value. After all, many of our pensions and investments depend on companies making good profits, paying good dividends and creating share-price growth.

MK62

ValiantSon wrote: »

You certainly implied that it was unreasonable:


I completely disagree that it is unfair or unreasonable. Banks are companies whose aim is to make a profit; they are not charities or NGOs who are there to provide a public service.



So what? You are still missing the fundamental point that they are a business and their objective is to make the most profit that they can. Indeed, they are charged with doing that under their fiduciary duty. If the market allows for them to reduce rates then they have every right to do so.



Safeguards??? What harm are you expecting to be protected from?

I'm sorry, but you are showing a real failure of understanding about how free markets work, and the nature of capitalism. The FCA is a regulator. They are charged with ensuring that the banks operate within the law and do not do anything to harm or discriminate against customers. You are not harmed by them reducing interest rates: you may be disgruntled, but you are not harmed.

So, a relatively minor disagreement about the disparity between a bank's rate rises and reductions, and the necessity to keep opening new accounts, now means I am missing the fundamental point about them making a profit and have a real failure to understand capitalism......err...OK, fair enough!;)

ValiantSon

MK62 wrote: »

So, a relatively minor disagreement about the disparity between a bank's rate rises and reductions, and the necessity to keep opening new accounts, now means I am missing the fundamental point about them making a profit and have a real failure to understand capitalism......err...OK, fair enough!;)

No, your insistence that banks' behaviour is unfair/unreasonable, and even more pertinently your suggestion that perhaps the FCA do need to introduce, "safeguards" around interest rates, show your failure to understand free markets and capitalism.

MK62

ValiantSon wrote: »

No, your insistence that banks' behaviour is unfair/unreasonable, and even more pertinently your suggestion that perhaps the FCA do need to introduce, "safeguards" around interest rates, show your failure to understand free markets and capitalism.

So perhaps you can enlighten me?

ValiantSon

MK62 wrote: »

So perhaps you can enlighten me?

I already have.

MK62

Then I will consider myself enlightened by you....