An old-fashioned Bank?

BML

I'm in my mid-eighties and started banking with Barclays in the early 1960s when I was newly married with a growing family. Things were tight and every now and then I got a sharp letter from the Bank Manager instructing me to make an appointment to discuss my financial improprieties. As I grew older I achieved an education and moved upwards financially. My salary went into the bank, my bills were paid and all of a sudden I noticed that my bank balance was increasing. I received no more letters from my Bank Manager and for the firat time in my life I looked at the possibility of receiving interest on any spare money I had. It was only then that I was shocked to discover what I perceived to be an enormous dichotomy between interest paid to banking customers and interest charged to them if they wanted to borrow and there is absolutely no relationship between the two. So, would anyone care to justify this state of affairs because to me it appears manifestly unfair. What is even more unfair is the speed with which Banks are closing their branches in what appears to me to me to be a campaign to force us into computer banking. I checked up if the oxford George Street branch of TSB and a notice jumped onto the screen of my computer telling me that not only had that one closed but so had a host of others. That day I popped into a Barclays Bank in Newport and noticed not only did they have no counter they practically had no staff although they had some spiffing looking machinery spread along the wall. 
My final question is are there any really old fashioned banks left now?   

greyteam1959

They are going the same way as the horse & cart.

RG2015

BML said:

I'm in my mid-eighties and started banking with Barclays in the early 1960s when I was newly married with a growing family. Things were tight and every now and then I got a sharp letter from the Bank Manager instructing me to make an appointment to discuss my financial improprieties. As I grew older I achieved an education and moved upwards financially. My salary went into the bank, my bills were paid and all of a sudden I noticed that my bank balance was increasing. I received no more letters from my Bank Manager and for the firat time in my life I looked at the possibility of receiving interest on any spare money I had. It was only then that I was shocked to discover what I perceived to be an enormous dichotomy between interest paid to banking customers and interest charged to them if they wanted to borrow and there is absolutely no relationship between the two. So, would anyone care to justify this state of affairs because to me it appears manifestly unfair. What is even more unfair is the speed with which Banks are closing their branches in what appears to me to me to be a campaign to force us into computer banking. I checked up if the oxford George Street branch of TSB and a notice jumped onto the screen of my computer telling me that not only had that one closed but so had a host of others. That day I popped into a Barclays Bank in Newport and noticed not only did they have no counter they practically had no staff although they had some spiffing looking machinery spread along the wall. 
My final question is are there any really old fashioned banks left now?   

Banks are businesses and their first duty is to their shareholders. Therefore they gear their decisions to making continued profits to fund the business and dividends.

This explains the differential between interest payable and interest receivable. Bear in mind also they need to allow for bad debts and administration costs. It also drives the decisions to close unprofitable branches and replace people with computers.

Their may me some old fashioned banks but they will be for the very rich, who will receive a personal service but pay substantial amounts for a private banking service.

I suspect that when you first started banking that you paid bank charges. Nowadays very few people pay for a banking service that is unrecognisable from that in the sixties.

Instant transfers and payments, direct debits, standing orders and a myriad of other services that would have been impossible to imagine 60 years ago.

PS I know DDs and SOs etc were available many years ago but they often took many days to set up compared to the virtual instant set up and management time now.

RG2015

greyteam1959 said:

They are going the same way as the horse & cart.

What I said but a bit more concise. 

sheramber

I am in my seventies nd can remember charges for direct debits.

There was also a branch manager in the local branch who dealt with you as a person. When he moved on you were notified about the change.

Bank staff addressed you by name.

Ah, fond memories.

Wyndham

sheramber said:

I am in my seventies nd can remember charges for direct debits.

There was also a branch manager in the local branch who dealt with you as a person. When he moved on you were notified about the change.

Bank staff addressed you by name.

Ah, fond memories.

And... many people didn't use the bank at all. They were paid in cash, and kept it under the mattress (or wherever). You had to have money to spare to have a bank account, because I think I'm right in saying, it wasn't free banking?

So yes, the bank manager did know customers by name, but there really weren't as many of them.

For reference, I'm in my 50s, and have heard about these Halcion times. But also have many relatives who didn't use a bank, or at least have a current account, until the 1980s. They maybe had a savings account with a book, but that's all.
 

grumbler

BML said:

I was shocked to discover what I perceived to be an enormous dichotomy between interest paid to banking customers and interest charged to them if they wanted to borrow and there is absolutely no relationship between the two. So, would anyone care to justify this state of affairs because to me it appears manifestly unfair.

• Your money that you get interest on is protected (up to certain amount) and you can't lose it.
• If a bank lends you money bank can easily lose it if you default.
  

Do you see the difference?

GaleSF63

Wyndham said:

sheramber said:

I am in my seventies nd can remember charges for direct debits.

There was also a branch manager in the local branch who dealt with you as a person. When he moved on you were notified about the change.

Bank staff addressed you by name.

Ah, fond memories.

And... many people didn't use the bank at all. They were paid in cash, and kept it under the mattress (or wherever). You had to have money to spare to have a bank account, because I think I'm right in saying, it wasn't free banking?

So yes, the bank manager did know customers by name, but there really weren't as many of them.

For reference, I'm in my 50s, and have heard about these Halcion times. But also have many relatives who didn't use a bank, or at least have a current account, until the 1980s. They maybe had a savings account with a book, but that's all.
 

Tea caddy with a picture of a Queen's/Kings's coronation on it.

Rob5342

Times change amd things move on, they always have and they always will. These days banks are closing because everyone banks online, 60 years ago railways were closing becuase everyone was using a car, 200 years ago blacksmiths were closing because goods were being sent by train. It's positive in lots of ways, if you want a new mortgage or savings account you can go online and find a competitive deal in 10 minutes from a company you'd either have never been able to find out about before, or wouldn't have exisited becuase it wouldn't have been viable for them to operate branches.

With anything there will people who look back at the old and those that embrace the new. Wind forward 50 years and people will be looking back in fondness at the things that were once the new things they embraced and were being bemoaned by the generation before. 

lr1277

I believe there was a saying about bank managers in those halcyon days, something along the lines of 3-6-3.

Give your savers 3% interest.

Charge your mortgage holders 6% interest.

Be on the golf course by 3pm.

The interest rate differential is how banks make their money. In these days of low interest rates, the differential is much smaller so that banks don't make as much money. As they have reduced income, they also need to reduce their costs. So you are seeing reduced numbers of staff and branches. Though if interest rates go back up and that interest rate differential applies again, I don't see banks re-introducing branches and staff.

As said above, they are trying to make as much money as possible for their shareholders.

[Deleted User]

I remember the good old days. 

A flatmate at Uni's father went bankrupt - the only bank in her home town - withdrew her interest free overdraft and refused to provide her with a Switch (debit/cheque) card as they were approved at branch level. They had written off her father's debt but she had did nothing wrong.