Ethical banks surge in new accounts
Discussion
Murph7355 said:
crankedup said:
Thanks.Which article at the link? I can see quite a few about Co-Op upping savings rates, creating new savings product and talking to LLoyds about buying branches but couldn't see the 42% stat (well I could, but only in relation to Britons saving for Christmas. 42 really is the universal answer
).Increased again from 42% to over 60% now.
crankedup said:
Erm, because some people prefer to use face to face for financial transactions. Perhaps some people do not have P.C's. And no doubt lots of other good reasons.
like i said i dont get it, even my 70 year old parents have online banking. there used to be a 'bank' with many more branches than any other providing basic counter services to serve the local community staffed by salaried rather than bonus incentivised staff who knew their local customers and were part of the community. it also had state backed investment products offering subsidised rates from the treasury. it sounds like this should be wildly popular but if the post office has all but given up i dont hold up much hope for your ethical banking er effortEdited by fbrs on Friday 13th July 14:39
crankedup said:
The %ages quoted though are meaningless without full context. And The Manchester Evening News does not give any (probably because the reporter understands mathematics as well as Joe Public appears to).There is no information to support why this has happened, there is no information to show the figures in unethical banks have dropped, there is nothing to show this is wildly out of the ordinary.
Without context, it's a rubbish number to support a viewpoint. Though I guess to report properly would have taken the pencil chewer a bit more effort.
crofty1984 said:
Jimboka said:
I'll stick with Barclays thanks. No problems with them at all in 30* years. The 'ethical bank' customers/representatives, who are on tv every 5 mins, sound and look like Prius owners...
Yup Natwest and HSBC for me. No complaints. OK, Natwest fell down last month, but compared to the good service they've provided me with so far, I'll stick to my guns.In the past two years I have had one case of account hacking, seemingly connected with NW staff but never explained; 3 serious problems trying to make overseas payments; a total failure to make a large CHAPS transfer on time ( we were finally told that it should go a day late, "fingers crossed") and a 6 week comedy of errors setting up a business account.
In another issue, trying to make a payment to a supplier with a Barclays account, I had to go into my NW branch, withdraw about £2k and then go next door to Barclays to make the payment because my branch couldn't do it.
I would change if I were sure anyone else was seriously better, recommendations welcome........
Murph7355 said:
crankedup said:
The %ages quoted though are meaningless without full context. And The Manchester Evening News does not give any (probably because the reporter understands mathematics as well as Joe Public appears to).There is no information to support why this has happened, there is no information to show the figures in unethical banks have dropped, there is nothing to show this is wildly out of the ordinary.
Without context, it's a rubbish number to support a viewpoint. Though I guess to report properly would have taken the pencil chewer a bit more effort.
fbrs said:
crankedup said:
Erm, because some people prefer to use face to face for financial transactions. Perhaps some people do not have P.C's. And no doubt lots of other good reasons.
like i said i dont get it, even my 70 year old parents have online banking. there used to be a 'bank' with many more branches than any other providing basic counter services to serve the local community staffed by salaried rather than bonus incentivised staff who knew their local customers and were part of the community. it also had state backed investment products offering subsidised rates from the treasury. it sounds like this should be wildly popular but if the post office has all but given up i dont hold up much hope for your ethical banking er effortEdited by fbrs on Friday 13th July 14:39
I agree with what you say about the old post offices and so on, however, the latest highly publicised banking scandals have provided a tipping point. It seems that people are sick and tired of the old ways of how banks do business and are looking to find alternatives. I don't have proof, although I have given some links to support growth in new accounts by ethical banks. Thats not enough for some posters though who seem to be in suspended animation of thought and mind, needing proof positive things are actually changing.
crankedup said:
Fair enough. I don't imagine the Co-operative bank will shout out about their competitors being crap but lets wait and see the numbers when they are published. I will have a dig around to see if I can fined some numbers but don't hold your breath. You do realise that Manchester is the head office area for Co-operative bank?
Indeed I do (used to live just down the road from the pyramid as a student). So you agree that the figure you based your thread on could (a) be very biased and (b) mean feck all in the overall scheme of things.
This is an example of what the media do to get people all frothy. And yet you believe it and use it as the basis for getting all red faced and angry.
Weird.
Murph7355 said:
crankedup said:
Fair enough. I don't imagine the Co-operative bank will shout out about their competitors being crap but lets wait and see the numbers when they are published. I will have a dig around to see if I can fined some numbers but don't hold your breath. You do realise that Manchester is the head office area for Co-operative bank?
Indeed I do (used to live just down the road from the pyramid as a student). So you agree that the figure you based your thread on could (a) be very biased and (b) mean feck all in the overall scheme of things.
This is an example of what the media do to get people all frothy. And yet you believe it and use it as the basis for getting all red faced and angry.
Weird.
Lots of cynicism was displayed in this forum last year when I went on about the binding voting rights for shareholders, that is now accepted these changes are being actioned. Like this thread, some cynicism because people such as yourself find it difficult to cope with changes perhaps.
crankedup said:
I am a supporter of ethical trading and fairtrade, but just a supporter making as much noise to promote the ethos as 'banker fans' like to defend banks.
i dont believe for a second the employees of these 'ethical' firms are any different from the big banks you so despise, they have just spent some cash on an 'ethical' consultant to come up with some marketting guff to corner a little niche of the hard of thinking, present company excepted 
as for being a 'bank fan' please don't include me in that, anyone who worked for an investment bank as long as i did knows exactly how they work and very few are fans of the banks or more specifically their pi55 poor management. conversely its hard to idly watch some of you guys spout utter nonsense on here. i do find it strange that when people's poor understanding of finance is corrected the person explaining is either ignored or accused of having some strange bank fetish... ho hum. ps one wonders if the same energy went in to building alternative revenue sources as has gone into paying bankers less if we wouldnt be booming again!
fbrs said:
crankedup said:
I am a supporter of ethical trading and fairtrade, but just a supporter making as much noise to promote the ethos as 'banker fans' like to defend banks.
i dont believe for a second the employees of these 'ethical' firms are any different from the big banks you so despise, they have just spent some cash on an 'ethical' consultant to come up with some marketting guff to corner a little niche of the hard of thinking, present company excepted as for being a 'bank fan' please don't include me in that, anyone who worked for an investment bank as long as i did knows exactly how they work and very few are fans of the banks or more specifically their pi55 poor management. conversely its hard to idly watch some of you guys spout utter nonsense on here. i do find it strange that when people's poor understanding of finance is corrected the person explaining is either ignored or accused of having some strange bank fetish... ho hum. ps one wonders if the same energy went in to building alternative revenue sources as has gone into paying bankers less if we wouldnt be booming again!
Your take on Ethical Trading is completely and utterly incorrect, and I also would include Fairtrade as a source of worthwhile reading.
Its not just about paying bankers less, thats a small part of the problem.
My problem is that I have lost all confidence in the major banking system, until I see meaningful reforms in place and positive news about banking I intend to steer clear from it as much as is possible.
The list of scandals that have now become public knowledge, the banks part played in the 2007/8 crash, B.D. Select Committee interview recently, all of this and more has severely damaged the previous reputations perceived by the public.
I prefer to listen to and read elsewhere and then form my own opinion regarding the big banks M.O.
I fully appreciate that I am in a minority in here, if we all agreed it would be even more boring
We won't be booming again for at least another five years, most likely a lot more years than that.
crankedup said:
I have nothing against any particular bank employee
i do, starting with joe gregorycrankedup said:
banking... I intend to steer clear from it as much as is possible.
always have, its not hardcrankedup said:
The list of scandals that have now become public knowledge, the banks part played in the 2007/8 crash, B.D. Select Committee interview recently, all of this and more has severely damaged the previous reputations perceived by the public.
i don't get is people's outrage at these scandals most of which have absoultely nothing to do with them. indeed everyone was frothingly angry about libor when they still have no idea what it is. who here has been sold an interest rate sw[o]p and had rates gone up instead of down would they still have been angry about it? seems people just like being outraged these days because the bbc says so.crankedup said:
I fully appreciate that I am in a minority in here
i'll wager only in this particular sub forum.Murph7355 said:
PS ref your op, is this volume of new accounts genuinely extraordinary? Or has it been a trend for a while? Are there other factors influencing it (eg have they just offered an account with free meerkat toys? Or 20% interest on balances for 6mths?)?? Have the number of accounts in "unethical" banks dropped by a similar or larger amount? And how many accounts does 42% relate to (is it just you and Steffan opening an account this week causing the spike or are we talking millions of people?)???
The stat of itself is totally meaningless without proper context. Unless, of course, you're simply looking to support a belief...
Piece in The Daily Mail today confirms the Co-operative Bank is now close to closing the deal with Lloyds Banking Group. This will see Co-operative increase the number of their branches by 632.The deal includes five million new customers which would triple the size of the Co-op's banking arm. From this we can say that the current number of accounts in Co-op is around 1.3 million approximately. So the 60% increase of new accounts opened during the past week must be around 600,000 or so. Not bad going.The stat of itself is totally meaningless without proper context. Unless, of course, you're simply looking to support a belief...
HeatonNorris said:
Just for clarity.
When the Co-Op do this deal, if your branch is one affected, your account will become property of the Co-Op?
Can't say I'm too happy with that - as I've been with Lloyds (and TSB before) for nearly 40 years now and have always been happy with their service.
TBH I guess that those account holders who do not wish to hold an account with the Co-operative will close same or move account over elsewhere. Most likely I would feel peeved if it affected me, its no different to having your high street branch closed which in effect I guess thats what it is.When the Co-Op do this deal, if your branch is one affected, your account will become property of the Co-Op?
Can't say I'm too happy with that - as I've been with Lloyds (and TSB before) for nearly 40 years now and have always been happy with their service.
Murph7355 said:
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...
Like I said, many of those who took up these loans had little other choice. People in severe financial difficulty, probably with poor credit ratings who had no other choice but to take such deals. It was either take it or live on the street. Not everybody was born into perfect families with trust funds and parents/grandparents to help them out everytime something goes wrong, not everybody is so lucky and people make mistakes. My parents were once in a position of having to take out loans at ridiculous rates just to get by, I was a young child at the time and they did it so as I had everything I needed and didn't have to go without when they both lost their jobs through no fault of their own. What an awful thing to do 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...
It wouldn't surprise me if children are the main reason why people in financial trouble took a lot of these deals. It's easy for the PH millionaires to sit here banging on about how people should save sensibly, but when there's nothing to save that becomes very difficult.I know you feel a bank can never do anything wrong, everything they do is wonderful and the entire population should be expected to have a business management degree and know more than the lender but the World doesn't work that way. It's not as simple as the client was either a simpleton or they signed up for it knowing what they had, there is a third option; the lender lied. Is that third option too uncomfortable for you to consider? Even if they did 'take advantage of a simpleton' and sell them something they knew wouldn't work that's still illegal. Courts have declared this product was knowingly mis-sold, people have been bullied into taking it and promised things it doesn't deliver, even when the lender knew beforehand the applicant wasn't eligable. The main question I have is how did the lenders think they could away with this? Surely they knew it'd come back to bite them later? If they thought they'd get away with it then its pretty clear who the stupid ones are.
Of course not all PPI was mis-sold, we call it the PPI scandal but in many cases it's rightly applied. I was mis-sold the stuff myself, I was told it'd kick in if I was made unemployed. Did it? Like f
k it did. Luckily it didn't really matter and it's such an irrelevance to me now I can't be bothered to get it back.crankedup said:
Piece in The Daily Mail today confirms the Co-operative Bank is now close to closing the deal with Lloyds Banking Group. This will see Co-operative increase the number of their branches by 632.The deal includes five million new customers which would triple the size of the Co-op's banking arm. From this we can say that the current number of accounts in Co-op is around 1.3 million approximately. So the 60% increase of new accounts opened during the past week must be around 600,000 or so. Not bad going.
It's late and I've had a long day (bless ), but I didn't think that was what the original stat was saying.I thought they were saying that they had seen a 42% (60%) increase in new account openings, not that their account base had increased by 42% (60%) in 3 weeks (a week?).
Also. I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that Lloyds was being forced to flog off branches?
martin84 said:
...
I know you feel a bank can never do anything wrong, everything they do is wonderful and the entire population should be expected to have a business management degree and know more than the lender but the World doesn't work that way. ...
If you can point me to where I've said this I will accept the rest of your view.I know you feel a bank can never do anything wrong, everything they do is wonderful and the entire population should be expected to have a business management degree and know more than the lender but the World doesn't work that way. ...
It's quite evident that there has been some mis-selling of product (it would seem you were for example). I don't recall any judge saying precisely how much mis-selling there has been though. My guess would be that the vast majority of people ticking the boxes never read what they were signing up to as the money was the focus (did you check at the time that what you had been told was true?). Regardless it matters not, the banks have chosen a course (they evidently felt it the path of least resistance).
People not having any other choice but to take out high APR loans is also open to some debate. So much money is shovelled down the Welfare path that I honestly cannot believe anyone in this country *has* to live on the street (and before you go further down the path, I'm not someone who was born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Very, very far from it).
Murph7355 said:
If you can point me to where I've said this I will accept the rest of your view.
I'm sure somebody on here has made posts which would give that impression and seeing as 98% of PH'ers are exactly the same person I didn't think I'd be too far off with my remark.Murph7355 said:
It's quite evident that there has been some mis-selling of product (it would seem you were for example). I don't recall any judge saying precisely how much mis-selling there has been though. My guess would be that the vast majority of people ticking the boxes never read what they were signing up to as the money was the focus (did you check at the time that what you had been told was true?).
Considering the millions paid out I would presume the mis-selling was quite widespread. In my case when I took out the loan a few years ago I was told bluntly by the suit that the insurance would pay out upon being made unemployed, I was not pressured to take it. I was in the position where I could get credit elsewhere and still am because I had enough in the bank to pay it off despite being made redundant. I had a flick through the paperwork, mostly checking repayment terms, things like that and signed it. Why would I presume the suit would lie to me? I'd expect it from a car salesman but not from a lender. Obviously now I employ a 'trust no-one' mentality.Murph7355 said:
People not having any other choice but to take out high APR loans is also open to some debate. So much money is shovelled down the Welfare path that I honestly cannot believe anyone in this country *has* to live on the street (and before you go further down the path, I'm not someone who was born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Very, very far from it).
Maybe (contrary to PH belief) there's actually lots of people who don't want to live on Welfare? They'd rather stay working and accept the high interest rate loans. For a family with one person working and one not, if the household earns above x amount the Welfare system won't help them. That working member will also have to give up work in order to get the state help and many can actually be better off in the long run by biting the bullet on such loan deals. You're right plenty is shovelled down the Welfare path, but most of it reaches only those willing to give up absolutely everything they may have earned.I would say there's a lack of knowledge around certain things. When I worked for the Job Centre I discovered the existence of 'crisis loans' which I never knew existed before. Interest free loans from the Government for you to buy an essential item (cooker, bed, things like that) and the interesting point was you didn't have to be on benefits to get one. Now lots of people have something important like a washing machine break and they sign up to outrageous catalogue deals which takes 10 years to repay. They could've got the money from the crisis loan system. They never gave you all of what you asked for obviously so the trick was to bid higher than you want and hope you get what you need. I think most of the money has run out for them now though.
martin84 said:
Murph7355 said:
If you can point me to where I've said this I will accept the rest of your view.
I'm sure somebody on here has made posts which would give that impression and seeing as 98% of PH'ers are exactly the same person I didn't think I'd be too far off with my remark.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff