Ethical banks surge in new accounts

[Podie]

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.

Would this be First Direct, the free division of ............. HSBC, man I wonder how they can afford to offer all those free services in such an 'ethical' manner?

huh? i couldn't give a flying fvck about ethical banking. the link to some ethical nonsense earlier was frankly pathetic. who is going to select their bank based on their environmental and human rights credentials ffs. good luck to them i just want security, low cost, no fvck ups and to speak with someone in the uk not 'bob' from india.

Spot on fbrs.

Just moved to FD - wish I'd done it years ago.

[Derek Smith]

General Bilko said:

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.

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.

The 'problem' is, in my opinion, that banks saw their role differently in the 'good old days' (your phrase) and, at least from my experience, did try to help customers who were getting into difficulty.

My bank for my buisiness account called me in to make money out of me, pure and simple. As soon as I was seen as not much use to them, it was made clear to me. I feel certain that my old bank manager would not have had to ask as many questions as the saleswoman did.

You seem to be suggesting that deregulation is what changed the banks' ethos and I have little argument against that.

Your point about the advice: it could have been you opposite. She told me all the opportunities I was missing, how now was the time to take advantage of all those gaps in the market (created by those who had followed her advice). Yet I explained to her that I had put a bit of money into a high risk investment portfolio (some mates organised a syndicate) that had all but failed so I preferred to have security rather than sleepless nights.

It was pointed out that my secured income, savings (which to me were bugger all), lack of debts and such meant I should go for it. She didn't listen to what I was after.

I'm not good with money. I'm about to move house, subject to contracts, and we've been sorting through our paperword. I found a bit over £1000 that I put by in an account for a rainy day, just in case. So I look to others for advice. But not to banks.

There's a financial chap in Brighton I've been to three times. He doesn't sell anything, apart from his advice. Not something you can trust to happen from a bank.

ETA: his advice was not to go into the syndicate with my mates as it was a very high risk with a lowish chance of returning a decent profit. That was just before the 2008 crash. Wish I'd listened. That said, it's picked up a little although we still haven't got up to our original investment, not by some way.

Edited by Derek Smith on Friday 13th July 10:23

[crankedup]

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?

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.

[crankedup]

Derek Smith said:

Banking has changed remarkably. In 1976 my bank manager called me in to discuss a problem that had been brought to his attention. I had just changed jobs and I was using my savings to pay weekly bills. He advised me how to change things for the better. He seemed concerned.

Not nowadays though. 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've been told that we are moving banks. This by my wife. She's read about ethical, understands the extra charge but points out, quite clearly, that when you consider what banks have charged us in the past for their free banking, the costs are not going to be that much higher. I can't remember the last time I went into a bank. I get cash from 'cashback' at supermarkets. I can't remember the last time I used an ATM.

Thanks for the link to Ethical.

Your welcome. This is just the shake up some retail banks from the big five need, of course I expect most branches are staffed by good honest people, the problem is they have to work under the employers M.O.

[crankedup]

hornet said:

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.

Its a fair point you raise, I can say the Co-operative banking service have been trading 'ethically' since 1993. Should any business trade as such and slip up during an non-ethical during a trading situation they will surely be in troubled waters. But the point is, ethical trading is a culture not a marketing tool. Any business can make a mistake or, as is oft said in here, unintended consequences can occur. This is somewhat different to the non ethical trader.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

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.

I believe so, I am sure someone more in the know than I will clarify however but my take is the same and actually this disassociation will damage both ends of the banking sector.

No it shouldn't damage the retail outlets. It is for the retail branches to up their game and win customers with competitive good honest service. If they cannot do that then closure will be on the doorstep. Genuine open competition, which is where most businesses trade.

[crankedup]

don4l said:

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?

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
--

The bank is not the food store, the Companies trade entirely separately and have entirely separate policies of trade.

[Benny Saltstein]

The Co-operative Bank - not exactly impartial or agenda free are they.

They're so heavily in bed with the Labour party they might as well be bumming them AND giving them the reach around.

I'll stick with Barclays thanks.

[crankedup]

Murph7355 said:

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?

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?

What I said I would repeat, in fact I have done so earlier today. Those retail branches that do not provide a decent service, or they do not want to provide a service can close their doors. Thats a good thing, most people do not want poor service in which ever form it may take, unless they are complete idiots. So the closure makes way for a trader who can offer service, thats a good thing in most peoples eyes I would have thought. So that is the answer to your question.

As for my dislike for banking, no I have no problem with banking when it can offer good honest service
that has been part of the Companies policy for the past couple of decades. Its a culture thing.

[AJS-]

crankedup said:

No it shouldn't damage the retail outlets. It is for the retail branches to up their game and win customers with competitive good honest service. If they cannot do that then closure will be on the doorstep. Genuine open competition, which is where most businesses trade.

Why is there so little competition in retail banking then?


Incidentally, First Direct is owned by HSBC

[crankedup]

AJS- said:

crankedup said:

No it shouldn't damage the retail outlets. It is for the retail branches to up their game and win customers with competitive good honest service. If they cannot do that then closure will be on the doorstep. Genuine open competition, which is where most businesses trade.

Why is there so little competition in retail banking then?


Incidentally, First Direct is owned by HSBC

Because the big five have been busy for the last ten years closing down branches leaving customers with less choice. We don't all live in cities.
Also you mention that First Direct are owned by HSBC, not sure what this has to do with any matters I have raised?

[AJS-]

crankedup said:

Why is there so little competition in retail banking then?


Incidentally, First Direct is owned by HSBC

Because the big five have been busy for the last ten years closing down branches leaving customers with less choice. We don't all live in cities.
Also you mention that First Direct are owned by HSBC, not sure what this has to do with any matters I have raised?

Surely that should have opened the way for more banks to step in and fill the void though?


FD has nothing to do with what you've raised. That was in response to a couple of other posters saying they were switching to them as though they were an alternative to the established banks.

[Murph7355]

crankedup said:

Because the big five have been busy for the last ten years closing down branches leaving customers with less choice. We don't all live in cities.
Also you mention that First Direct are owned by HSBC, not sure what this has to do with any matters I have raised?

They haven't been doing this for sts and giggles. We all want free stuff. Something gets squeezed. Under utilised, expensive to operate branches are an obvious candidate when cheaper technology driven solutions are accessible by most.

Unintended consequences again. And I really cannot see Joe Public being happy about them.

[Murph7355]

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...

[crankedup]

AJS- said:

crankedup said:

Why is there so little competition in retail banking then?


Incidentally, First Direct is owned by HSBC

Because the big five have been busy for the last ten years closing down branches leaving customers with less choice. We don't all live in cities.
Also you mention that First Direct are owned by HSBC, not sure what this has to do with any matters I have raised?

Surely that should have opened the way for more banks to step in and fill the void though?


FD has nothing to do with what you've raised. That was in response to a couple of other posters saying they were switching to them as though they were an alternative to the established banks.

I'm not responsible for which bank opens where, but I accept that a closure may offer a opportunity for a smaller bank to move in. I would imagine that now is the right time, as evidenced by new accounts being opened, for the smaller ethical banks to consider opening more high street branches. The next five / ten years will be interesting.

[crankedup]

Murph7355 said:

crankedup said:

Because the big five have been busy for the last ten years closing down branches leaving customers with less choice. We don't all live in cities.
Also you mention that First Direct are owned by HSBC, not sure what this has to do with any matters I have raised?

They haven't been doing this for sts and giggles. We all want free stuff. Something gets squeezed. Under utilised, expensive to operate branches are an obvious candidate when cheaper technology driven solutions are accessible by most.

Unintended consequences again. And I really cannot see Joe Public being happy about them.

I have lost count of seeing the number of protests 'keep our bank branch open' over the last decade or more, to no avail. This is all about customer service, they closed the less profitable branches leaving their customers high and dry. They are/were big enough to take these losses but choose that profit is more important than customers. Seems to me that striking a balance would have been a better way forward. The big banks became focused on profit at any cost to the detriment of the customer.

[crofty1984]

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.

[crankedup]

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...

www.bankingtimes.co.uk/bank/co-op/

[Murph7355]

crankedup said:

I have lost count of seeing the number of protests 'keep our bank branch open' over the last decade or more, to no avail. This is all about customer service, they closed the less profitable branches leaving their customers high and dry. They are/were big enough to take these losses but choose that profit is more important than customers. Seems to me that striking a balance would have been a better way forward. The big banks became focused on profit at any cost to the detriment of the customer.

Lost count or never bothered to count in the first place?

I could get a few mates with placards outside HR Owen shouting "drop the price of 458s, I want my Ferrari now!". I mean, Ferrari make plenty of money so it's not as if they can't afford it.

We all want stuff. If we think we can provide it on a better commercial footing we are free to do so.

No doubt those same people you lost count of also want their pensions and savings accounts to have a healthy return too, little realising that expecting their bank to carry unnecessary costs is detrimental to those things...

[Murph7355]

crankedup said:

www.bankingtimes.co.uk/bank/co-op/

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 ).