By using Apprenticeforums services you agree to our Cookies Use and Data Transfer outside the EU.
We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, ads and Newsletters.

  • Join our UK Small business Forum

    Helping business owners with every day advice, tips and discussions with likeminded business owners. Become apart of a community surrounded by level headed business folk from around the UK


    Join us!

Banks 'must lend to small firms'

Rickwood Portpatrick

Rickwood Portpatrick

New Member
Hi DickW

You say "costs will be covered by charges & loans will be relatively small"

I was just wondering why it is ok for councils to make charges for loans when the general public led by that loud-mouthed know-all Martin Lewis seem to think the Banks should be able to do everything for nothing and give back everything they have charged in the past?
 

Boxby

New Member
Fred - Does/Did corporate/business banking subsidise the personal banking?

Business are charged for pretty every transaction that they can be charged for, yet the majority of personal accounts used to have free banking, so was there some cross subsidising going on there? I know that banks made money out of personal loans, credit cards etc, but how did they cover the costs for that basic processing of transactions that business pay for but individuals dont?
 
Rickwood Portpatrick

Rickwood Portpatrick

New Member
Hi Sandra
Good question

Unless personal customers kept significant balances in their accounts; i.e. in the £000s then they were loss making. The costs involved are immense. Premises, staffing, supply and maintenance of ATMs, provision of sttements, cheque books etc are only a few of the costs off the top of my head.

Many of the personal accounts just have wages paid in then drawn out leaving a balance of 0 - i .e. just a public service. The only way to make these accounts profitable was to "cross-sell" other products such as mortgages, personal loans etc etc which is why the counter staff used to pester folk all the time. The other thing they did was to try to get them to take out Royalties accounts with a monthly fee for benefits most didn`t use.

I don`t think it was really the case that the business accounts subsidised the personal but as far as I know the business /comercial/corporate side of things was profitable (as it should be)

In RBS speak, the business sector is connections with annual turnover of up to £1m Within that, some business accounts (the minority) were very profitable (usually the cash rich) and others weren`t profitable with the majority inbetween, at least covering costs.

The whole thing about the Banks and why everyone is out to get them is that they made what was seen as being excessive profits but the public wasn`t really made aware that these "profits" were not from grass roots banking as we see it in Stranraer or Stornoway but from deals done in the "city" whether it be London or New York etc

If the RBS, HBOS etc had published two sets of results say, RBS High Street Bnaking and RBS Corporate, then the feeling that Banks are public enemy number one and should do everthing for nothing might not be so strong

The tragedy is , of course, that the profits were, it no transpires, numbers conjured up by these city whiz-kids so that they could make obscene bonuses so I guess no-one really knows, except for those inside the Banks how much (or how little I suspect) Banks make from day to day high street operations.

From the perspective of being a business customer myself, I must confess that I resent paying for banking services if you are a business and I think that the time is coming when all personal customers wil have to pay something as well.
 
Top