Banks you wish you were never in to

confused@BR
confused@BR Posts: 295
edited October 2013 in The cake stop
The Co-op bank seems in a bit of trouble. I joined them years ago and wondered why I bothered. I mainly bank with the Nationwide these days.

Are we missing anything?

They seem a dull old brand that trades on 'former glories'. What is it we are losing?
'fool'

Comments

  • team47b
    team47b Posts: 6,425
    I think that you describing a financial company as a 'brand' is very astute.

    Brands are 'image' built to reflect society.

    We get the brands we deserve.

    We get the banks we deserve.
    my isetta is a 300cc bike
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,921
    team47b wrote:
    I think that you describing a financial company as a 'brand' is very astute.

    Brands are 'image' built to reflect society.

    We get the brands we deserve.

    We get the banks we deserve.

    You hear the refrain, 'Blame the banks!' everyday. If you look, you will see the banks mentioned on here once or twice.
    But you are right, we do get the banks we deserve. 'We' rushed headlong into taking out debts, be it loans or mortgages, that we knew we could not sustain. When homes were repossessed or loans defaulted on, it was the banks' fault.
    Yes, the banks were speculating with money in a way that shouldn't have happened, but the responsibility for the results is not just theirs.
  • MountainMonster
    MountainMonster Posts: 7,423
    I find the banks here in the UK have been rather decent in the grand scheme of things compared to other countries. I have had many more problems in Austria than I have had here. Still though, blaming the banks for all of our shortcomings is not exactly healthy, and is testament to our perception of we the people are never at fault it is always someone else who should have the blame.

    I am rather satisfied with Barclays. It has been a long journey with them with a few hiccups, but overall, they have treated me well and let me know what is going on.
    My London Road
  • team47b
    team47b Posts: 6,425
    Ballysmate wrote:
    team47b wrote:
    I think that you describing a financial company as a 'brand' is very astute.

    Brands are 'image' built to reflect society.

    We get the brands we deserve.

    We get the banks we deserve.

    You hear the refrain, 'Blame the banks!' everyday. If you look, you will see the banks mentioned on here once or twice.
    But you are right, we do get the banks we deserve. 'We' rushed headlong into taking out debts, be it loans or mortgages, that we knew we could not sustain. When homes were repossessed or loans defaulted on, it was the banks' fault.
    Yes, the banks were speculating with money in a way that shouldn't have happened, but the responsibility for the results is not just theirs.

    Yes I should have emphasised the 'WE' as the culprit but in reality it was of course Thatcher that created that created the 'ME' culture :D
    my isetta is a 300cc bike
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,921
    Yes Frank. :lol:
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 51,346
    My two penneth worth (depending on inflation/currency fluctuations).

    You could argue that the people get the governemt they deserve in the same vein.

    A more sophisticated argument regarding banks is one of ecomomic sureity. A society relies on banks - every aspect of legitimate working life is intrinsically linked to some form of bank. Therefore it is in our collective economic interest that banks behave in a way that 'lubricates' the machine.
    You could argue that they have a moral duty to support the society to which they should 'serve'. Instead, banks and the financial sector got out of control and just like a salesman convinces someone to buy something that they do not need, banks are culpable of the same crime.
    This of course was allowed (in the UK) to continue on it's hedonistic way because it was bouying a government intent on showing everybody what a good job they were doing.
    The mortgage sector was severely under-regualated. The biggest financial committment an individual could make was under-regulated; how ironic.
    I think that banks should serve the public and not their self interest. I think that they have received no more than a rap on the knuckles for what is unquestionably a crime of astronomic proprtions and is a thumb in the eye for the Milton Freidmanist 'let the market take control' (it will be self governing through competition and public choice) ethic.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • Mikey23
    Mikey23 Posts: 5,306
    Nat west here. Rather like a comfy pullover knitted by auntie Nellie which is three sizes too big... They look after my money for me and I don't pay them anything so that's ok. They have a presence in my high street and the staff are quite friendly and I don't think I could be bothered to change them unless they really annoy me...

    And I use the nationwide for everything else as they are the best of the few remaining mutuals
  • confused@BR
    confused@BR Posts: 295
    The odd thing about the financial difficulties is that, whilst it is accepted that insufficient scrutiny and control of the banks caused the problem; no increased control or scrutiny of the banks has happened.

    Instead the British Government has conspired to arrange inflation at 3.3% when returns on savings seldom achieve 2.0% and the banks can fill the boots with unlimited funds at 0.5%. To me, it seems the spivs have won. Again.
    'fool'

Categories