Marcus by Goldman Sachs Bank
Discussion
DonkeyApple said:
The name works well on several levels. Firstly, Marcus Goldman wasn’t a mercenary 
but probably more relevant is that consumers trust a product which has a personal name where that name is considered trustworthy. Biblical and Plantagenet names tend to work quite well but you’d avoid the Biffa Bin Breeder names as a matter of course. There seems to be a big trend in marketing at the moment in both reviving old founders as well as giving things a Christian name.
Who doesn’t trust a ‘Marcus’. It is afterall why so many estate agents known as Gary by their mothers insist of being called Marcus in public.
:Did but probably more relevant is that consumers trust a product which has a personal name where that name is considered trustworthy. Biblical and Plantagenet names tend to work quite well but you’d avoid the Biffa Bin Breeder names as a matter of course. There seems to be a big trend in marketing at the moment in both reviving old founders as well as giving things a Christian name. Who doesn’t trust a ‘Marcus’. It is afterall why so many estate agents known as Gary by their mothers insist of being called Marcus in public.
P.s. was never a Gary
Does the 12 month, 0.15% bonus start on the day you open the account or did it start when Goldman Sachs announced the account?
My mum has three 123 accounts with each having charity donations to keep up the two direct debit rule. With those and the £5 account fee she is making nothing so I recommended she transfer the £60k to a Marcus account and close the three 123 accounts (and all the charity direct debits).
I also have a 123 with over the maximum £20k so I am going to open one of these and transfer most of my money across. Tempted to then get a Tesco account (3% on the first £3k with no fee) as my main account and close the 123. Only ever keep £3k in Tesco and the rest in the Marcus account.
My mum has three 123 accounts with each having charity donations to keep up the two direct debit rule. With those and the £5 account fee she is making nothing so I recommended she transfer the £60k to a Marcus account and close the three 123 accounts (and all the charity direct debits).
I also have a 123 with over the maximum £20k so I am going to open one of these and transfer most of my money across. Tempted to then get a Tesco account (3% on the first £3k with no fee) as my main account and close the 123. Only ever keep £3k in Tesco and the rest in the Marcus account.
Shnozz said:
I did notice an email from Hargreaves Lansdown last week with a new account facility to basically centralise your savings and place them via HL into the best rates across the various bank savings accounts so might be worth a look. Seemed a simple idea to utilise the rates available without the aggro of opening countless accounts.
This is something that would be really good if it works as advertised IMO. Being able to use one website / online system, to easily distribute money between savings accounts up to their max limits, without going through all the rigmarole of opening, closing, using a dozen logins and passwords..
Joey Deacon said:
Does the 12 month, 0.15% bonus start on the day you open the account or did it start when Goldman Sachs announced the account?
My mum has three 123 accounts with each having charity donations to keep up the two direct debit rule. With those and the £5 account fee she is making nothing so I recommended she transfer the £60k to a Marcus account and close the three 123 accounts (and all the charity direct debits).
I also have a 123 with over the maximum £20k so I am going to open one of these and transfer most of my money across. Tempted to then get a Tesco account (3% on the first £3k with no fee) as my main account and close the 123. Only ever keep £3k in Tesco and the rest in the Marcus account.
The bonus starts when you open the account My mum has three 123 accounts with each having charity donations to keep up the two direct debit rule. With those and the £5 account fee she is making nothing so I recommended she transfer the £60k to a Marcus account and close the three 123 accounts (and all the charity direct debits).
I also have a 123 with over the maximum £20k so I am going to open one of these and transfer most of my money across. Tempted to then get a Tesco account (3% on the first £3k with no fee) as my main account and close the 123. Only ever keep £3k in Tesco and the rest in the Marcus account.
Your approach is pretty much what I have been doing for ages and it works perfectly for me
bad company said:
Simpo Two said:
OK let's cut to the chase here. Ethics is a county. If Marcus is covered by the FSCS to £85K, and I put £85K in it, how can I lose it?
Realistically the answer is that you can’t.bad company said:
Henners said:
Seems to be pretty popular, 50k accounts opened in the 10 days since UK launch.
Hopefully it’ll encourage others to review their rates.smithyithy said:
Shnozz said:
I did notice an email from Hargreaves Lansdown last week with a new account facility to basically centralise your savings and place them via HL into the best rates across the various bank savings accounts so might be worth a look. Seemed a simple idea to utilise the rates available without the aggro of opening countless accounts.
This is something that would be really good if it works as advertised IMO. Being able to use one website / online system, to easily distribute money between savings accounts up to their max limits, without going through all the rigmarole of opening, closing, using a dozen logins and passwords..
bad company said:
The wealth products will be how they’re planning to make money from this.
It’s a retail lending platform in the US. Probably follow a similar route here. It offers fixed rate loans up to $40k.It’s a regulatory arbitrage play (prolongation of retail funding) AND allows Goldman access to FDIC (in a limited capacity) AND Fed Support in a crisis. Likely follow a similar route here.
turbomoped said:
Curious about what their previous channels were for getting funds to do what they do and why they have decided to go for the publics pennies.
My guess is the next phase of extreme greed.
So a bit like Tesco bank, and Virgin money?My guess is the next phase of extreme greed.
IMO if you want to complain about bankers' greed the place to look is the big High Street names offering 0.05% on their "savings" accounts, not the people offering a better, although still paltry and negative to inflation, 1.5%
turbomoped said:
Curious about what their previous channels were for getting funds to do what they do and why they have
decided to go for the publics pennies.
My guess is the next phase of extreme greed.
Goldman’s, until 2008 were just an Investment firm / securities trading company. They are largely funded in the wholesale interbank market (and still are often from Retail banks).decided to go for the publics pennies.
My guess is the next phase of extreme greed.
Obviously when the balloon went up, they needed Federal Reserve support and access to TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program). Generally Investment banks are NOT eligible for Fed Support; nor deemed Bank Holding Companies. On 21st Sept, it was pretty certain that if Goldman’s and Morgan Stanley DIDN’T succumb to Fed oversight and become bank holding companies’ we were about 2 days from re-entering the stone age. Goldman’s was the biggest user of Fed liquidity in the period immediately after Sept 15th 2008.
Once you’ve become a bank holding co; and come under fed scrutiny – you may as well look into retail deposits. One of the gifts of post crisis Financial Regulation is the presumption that retail and investment banking activity is negatively correlated. The regulation allows banks to claim term value for overnight or callable retail deposits, this saves funding costs and meets post BASEL liquidity ratio’s. There is also the requirement for banks to hold a longer term liability horizon (so any deposits they receive, money borrowed etc) than any short term loans (assets) to non-banks. Therefore, if you want to lend to retail; you need to fund from retail.
Separating retail from investment banking activity; is generally deemed desirable but it’s a post (financial) crisis thinking AND does nothing to protect us from the next (looming) crisis – which is private sector support of public debt binging with the added turbo charger of Target2.
stongle said:
Goldman’s, until 2008 were just an Investment firm / securities trading company. They are largely funded in the wholesale interbank market (and still are often from Retail banks).
Obviously when the balloon went up, they needed Federal Reserve support and access to TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program). Generally Investment banks are NOT eligible for Fed Support; nor deemed Bank Holding Companies. On 21st Sept, it was pretty certain that if Goldman’s and Morgan Stanley DIDN’T succumb to Fed oversight and become bank holding companies’ we were about 2 days from re-entering the stone age. Goldman’s was the biggest user of Fed liquidity in the period immediately after Sept 15th 2008.
Once you’ve become a bank holding co; and come under fed scrutiny – you may as well look into retail deposits. One of the gifts of post crisis Financial Regulation is the presumption that retail and investment banking activity is negatively correlated. The regulation allows banks to claim term value for overnight or callable retail deposits, this saves funding costs and meets post BASEL liquidity ratio’s. There is also the requirement for banks to hold a longer term liability horizon (so any deposits they receive, money borrowed etc) than any short term loans (assets) to non-banks. Therefore, if you want to lend to retail; you need to fund from retail.
Separating retail from investment banking activity; is generally deemed desirable but it’s a post (financial) crisis thinking AND does nothing to protect us from the next (looming) crisis – which is private sector support of public debt binging with the added turbo charger of Target2.
Thanks very much for that; it's great insight. Has too-big-to-fail assymetry simply moved goalposts or do you think it dismantled? If GS & co can now call on pots of too-big-to-fail socialised rescue money & they can all therefore take more risks, how much bigger can QE get? Seems to be building up an almighty feedback loop that's about to hurt our eardrums.Obviously when the balloon went up, they needed Federal Reserve support and access to TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program). Generally Investment banks are NOT eligible for Fed Support; nor deemed Bank Holding Companies. On 21st Sept, it was pretty certain that if Goldman’s and Morgan Stanley DIDN’T succumb to Fed oversight and become bank holding companies’ we were about 2 days from re-entering the stone age. Goldman’s was the biggest user of Fed liquidity in the period immediately after Sept 15th 2008.
Once you’ve become a bank holding co; and come under fed scrutiny – you may as well look into retail deposits. One of the gifts of post crisis Financial Regulation is the presumption that retail and investment banking activity is negatively correlated. The regulation allows banks to claim term value for overnight or callable retail deposits, this saves funding costs and meets post BASEL liquidity ratio’s. There is also the requirement for banks to hold a longer term liability horizon (so any deposits they receive, money borrowed etc) than any short term loans (assets) to non-banks. Therefore, if you want to lend to retail; you need to fund from retail.
Separating retail from investment banking activity; is generally deemed desirable but it’s a post (financial) crisis thinking AND does nothing to protect us from the next (looming) crisis – which is private sector support of public debt binging with the added turbo charger of Target2.
turbomoped said:
Curious about what their previous channels were for getting funds to do what they do and why they have
decided to go for the publics pennies.
My guess is the next phase of extreme greed.
Do you think that other businesses doing business is an example of ‘extreme greed’ or simply seeing demand for a service that they can provide at a rate that allows them to make a profit?decided to go for the publics pennies.
My guess is the next phase of extreme greed.
rockin said:
So a bit like Tesco bank, and Virgin money?
IMO if you want to complain about bankers' greed the place to look is the big High Street names offering 0.05% on their "savings" accounts, not the people offering a better, although still paltry and negative to inflation, 1.5%
1) where are risk free rates at the moment?IMO if you want to complain about bankers' greed the place to look is the big High Street names offering 0.05% on their "savings" accounts, not the people offering a better, although still paltry and negative to inflation, 1.5%
2) what costs are incurred in running a current account?
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff