Ethical banks surge in new accounts
Discussion
rs1952 said:
heppers75 said:
Why would you assume I had a vested interest? Rather naive don't you think?
Your post was somewhat confusing and I was left thinking what could lead you to such a rather ill informed diatribe, then ahhh there it is another bonuses envy jibe at the last...
Perhaps I was being uncharitable and you were just putting the opposing point of view, but I wasn't accusing you personally of a vested interest (although you may or may not have one, I neither know or care). And personally I couldn't give a toss about the size of bankers bonuses, unless the banks start pleading poverty and want to start charging ordinary punters extra charges, in which case the size of those bonuses then should be brought into the equation.Your post was somewhat confusing and I was left thinking what could lead you to such a rather ill informed diatribe, then ahhh there it is another bonuses envy jibe at the last...
The point I was making, that was clearly lost on you, perhaps needs stating in simpler language so that you can understand
There is no guarantee that any changes made to the banking industry will result in higher charges to the client.
How's that? Understand now?
So I offer you a challenge, find an 'ethical' bank which fits your utopian criteria that does not have an investment arm division which provides 'free' current account services.
crankedup said:
Alucidnation said:
Are there any others that anyone can recommend?
Well worth reading if your serious about ethical banking and loads of other information. www.ethicalconsumer.orgfbrs said:
ive had a first direct account for about 15 years, in that time i've never set foot in a bank branch and never had grounds for complaint about their free service. wtf is everyone moaning about, why does anyone need branches?
This. Also in first direct. And the very nice man from Coutts comes to see the wife and I at home. Go into an actual bank branch. Yuk. Imagine.
tomw2000 said:
fbrs said:
ive had a first direct account for about 15 years, in that time i've never set foot in a bank branch and never had grounds for complaint about their free service. wtf is everyone moaning about, why does anyone need branches?
This. Also in first direct. And the very nice man from Coutts comes to see the wife and I at home. Go into an actual bank branch. Yuk. Imagine.
Jimboka said:
TBH my 'non Ethical' bank have never charged me a penny. Dont go overdrawn-they wont charge you. Never took ppi as I'm not stupid, I told them I didnt need it.
Well good for you but some sellers simply wouldn't give you the loan unless you took the PPI. Most victims were people backed into a corner, forced to take high APR loans due to a bad credit rating and had no other option. I wouldn't call them 'stupid.'Jimboka said:
Top staff get a bonus. Good on them. This trendy politics of envy is getting very tedious!!
I think its the bonuses paid to people who brought down their bank resulting in the taxpayer bailing them out - who are presumably not top staff - which annoy people. Bonuses paid because it was supposedly 'in the contract' which sort of defeats the whole point of a bonus surely, if it's contractually guaranteed irrespective of what you do. 
Back on topic. I'm not overly fussed personally about switching accounts, I don't think those moving their banking elsewhere really think it'll 'bring down' the big boys but plenty are fed up of the behaviour of big name banks and simply want to go elsewhere. There's plenty of 'banker fans' on here who will always come up with a doom laden strawman against anything which might pull what seems to now be a rogue industry back into line - today it's the idea that we'll all have to pay for bank accounts if we seperate banking arms. To the 'banker fans' (for want of a better term) you cannot do anything to these big banks because they'll just revolt, we've been hearing they'll all go abroad if you tax them for years now. Whisper it quietly but they're still here
In reality they can't charge for basic bank accounts because there will always be one who doesn't charge and then they get all the customers. They can't all collude to charge at the same time because that would be illegal - not that matters of legality seem to bother banks these days. With the level of public anger (whether you think it's justified or not) towards banks, it really isn't the time for them to piss people off. The sight of a multi millionaire CEO who's just pocketed x amount of zillions saying 'we can't afford to do accounts for free, we need the money!!' would never get taken seriously.
How are we defining "ethical" here? I've moved some savings out of Santander into Yorkshire Building Society recently, but that was a much about not having all my eggs in one basket as any ethical concerns. Were I a Metro Bank or Virgin Money, I'd be pushing out a tonne of marketing highlighting the "safe and sensible" business plan. Will be interesting to see what sort of traction they can get in the coming years.
heppers75 said:
tomw2000 said:
fbrs said:
ive had a first direct account for about 15 years, in that time i've never set foot in a bank branch and never had grounds for complaint about their free service. wtf is everyone moaning about, why does anyone need branches?
This. Also in first direct. And the very nice man from Coutts comes to see the wife and I at home. Go into an actual bank branch. Yuk. Imagine.
Derek Smith said:
I could give a nubmer of examples, as could many people, of where they just try and screw every penny they can out of you. The banks are nothing more than money making machines. When I suddenly started to get a regular income into my business account they wanted to talk to me. I was given coffee, buscuits, a nice confortable interview room and a nice friendly smile, right up until I presented my business plan showing that I would fund any costs through profit and if I had no profit, there would be no purchases. Off went the smile and if she could have dragged the coffee from me I feel sure she would have done.
Ethical? Isn't that what every bank should be given the fact that they are trusted?
I don't see the problem in your example tbh (apart from the frosty woman). Banks are businesses and make profits from lending to individuals and business. Your business plan didn't need a loan to make it work, well done, but others would. And some plans could be improved (i.e. make more profit for the owners) if there was additional cash injected in and a good banker would point that out - a win win, the bank gets additional fees and your business makes more profits. Ethical? Isn't that what every bank should be given the fact that they are trusted?
In the 'good old days' if you were looking for a loan but the bank felt your business wasn't viable you wouldn't have got it. The unethical nature of banking before the crash was you would have still got the loan with a crap business plan because the bank would securitize your debt and sell it on, hence wouldn't care if your business collapsed, putting you into bankruptcy and you default on the loan.
heppers75 said:
The only reason all these services are free today is that they are subsidised through the very investment arms you wish to disassociate from retail.
Don't they do this though, to have access to the vast, low interest liquidity provided by consumer deposits? Their most profitable arms may well be trading and corporate finance but without retail deposits neither would be possible on the scale they do them.Genuine question.
AJS- said:
heppers75 said:
The only reason all these services are free today is that they are subsidised through the very investment arms you wish to disassociate from retail.
Don't they do this though, to have access to the vast, low interest liquidity provided by consumer deposits? Their most profitable arms may well be trading and corporate finance but without retail deposits neither would be possible on the scale they do them.Genuine question.
fbrs said:
heppers75 said:
tomw2000 said:
fbrs said:
ive had a first direct account for about 15 years, in that time i've never set foot in a bank branch and never had grounds for complaint about their free service. wtf is everyone moaning about, why does anyone need branches?
This. Also in first direct. And the very nice man from Coutts comes to see the wife and I at home. Go into an actual bank branch. Yuk. Imagine.
crankedup said:
Unsurprisingly people are switching out of the big five into smaller ethical banks. The Co-operative bank has seen a 42% increase in new accounts this week alone with others also seeing increases. Another sign that tells the big five 'enough is enough'. Is anyone surprised, no nor am I.
Bank lovers will suggest that the small accounts are more trouble then there worth perhaps, which is another way of telling us we are not interested in serving the public?
Is this the same Co-op that was recently exposed for screwing over dairy farmers?Bank lovers will suggest that the small accounts are more trouble then there worth perhaps, which is another way of telling us we are not interested in serving the public?
Tesco, M&S, Sainsbury's and Waitrose all had policies in place to ensure that farmers were able to make a profit. The "ethical" Co-op, along with Morrisons and ASDA, was paying less than the cost of production.
I'm gobsmacked that anybody could be gullible enough to believe a company that spends millions on a marketing campaign that says "trust us - we are ethical".
I was taught to judge people by their actions, and not their words.
Don
--
crankedup said:
Its very easy to change from one bank to another, with the diabolical service offered by the big bank retail outlets I'm surprised that anyone would want to keep an account open with them.
Yes the time of big banks serving customers has long since gone, as I alluded to in my O.P. However, this may change when the retail side has to stand alone. Or perhaps the retail side will simply close its doors, in which case that will be good news. It will release some high street bank facilities for the ethical small fry to continue mopping up those retail customers. I guess this in turn will release a little pressure of the continuing hate campaign from Joe Public toward the big banks. That is until they realise they are being shafted by the investment banks from all other angles.
Quoted all of it so as not to be accused of losing context, but do you mean what I think you mean on the bit in bold? Not only would you like to see banks split up, but you think it would be "good news" if the retail side closed down?Yes the time of big banks serving customers has long since gone, as I alluded to in my O.P. However, this may change when the retail side has to stand alone. Or perhaps the retail side will simply close its doors, in which case that will be good news. It will release some high street bank facilities for the ethical small fry to continue mopping up those retail customers. I guess this in turn will release a little pressure of the continuing hate campaign from Joe Public toward the big banks. That is until they realise they are being shafted by the investment banks from all other angles.
Crikey, you really, really do dislike anything to do with banking and the finance sector don't you. Did a cashier sleep with your wife or a mortgage advisor kick your dog or something?
grumbledoak said:
I think 'people' are woefully ignorant as to the (complete lack of) importance of their current accounts in all this.
Predictable post.However, for a completely unimportant account, the Natwest went to an awful lot of trouble to keep mine the other week, with £75 compensation when i theatened to leave when they screwed up a CHAPS transfer.
Jimboka said:
TBH my 'non Ethical' bank have never charged me a penny. Dont go overdrawn-they wont charge you. Never took ppi as I'm not stupid, I told them I didnt need it. Not difficult. Top staff get a bonus. Good on them. This trendy politics of envy is getting very tedious!!
Oh yeah? What rate of interest do you get on your average CA balance?Otispunkmeyer said:
surely, reinstating something like the Glass-Steagal act is all we need?
It really depends what you are trying to achieve IMO.martin84 said:
Well good for you but some sellers simply wouldn't give you the loan unless you took the PPI. Most victims were people backed into a corner, forced to take high APR loans due to a bad credit rating and had no other option. I wouldn't call them 'stupid.'
Just a thought, but they could have elected not to take the loan out at all if being forced (one presumes at gun point) to take on PPI or a high APR? I mean, perhaps in having such conditions the credit firm is trying to tell them something.The implication of what you're saying, and others say when they lay the blame solely at the lending agent's door, is that the customer is fiscally naive (I'll avoid the word stupid). You can't have it both ways - either the customer is indeed stupid (oops) and the bank (etc) has wilfully taken advantage of a simpleton (oooooops). Or the customer isn't stupid and entered into the contract knowingly and of their own free will...in which case the blame lies at their own door...
heppers75 said:
Just out of interest Derek, did you pay banking charges back in 76'?
I'm not sure. Whatever they were, it was clear from the outset. I had no problems with banks until we moved from Kent to Sussex and the bank made a mistake with my mortgage. I was sent letters for the first time, that was 1985, for which I was charged despite the content being wrong. I'd moved banks and I was not able to see the manager.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff