The British Economy

[1949threepence 3,367]

I agree with most of what has been said so far in the thread.

I'd also add that, in my humble opinion at least, one of the big problems we have these days is "regulations" ~ way too many of them. Organisations across both the public and private sector are totally tied up in rigidly applied procedure, right down to scripted telephone conversations, which cannot be deviated from evben though the damn fool irrelevant questions posed to customers, must be extremely irritating. There is less and less room for people to come up with original solutions to seemingly intractable problems. I myself was told; "You're not paid to think, you're paid to follow instructions to the letter and work" ~ well fair enough. That's pretty much exactly what I've done ever since, and even though I can see where things are outright incorrect, I just stay silent and follow the rule book to the letter. At the end of the day, it's managment's problem, not mine.

You also hear of people who get the sack or are disciplined for stepping outside the rule book to perform totally laudable and well intentioned actions, such as the ambulance driver who stopped out of course to help a pedestrian who had been knocked down, or the numerous others who are dismissed for whistle blowing, even in the public sector.

But really, this state of affairs is woefully negative. It stifles, initiative, enthusiasm and originality. All qualities needed to do well. Yes, there has to be structure and laid down procedures. But these should not become a strangling end in themselves. There should always be room for new ideas, and above all, originality of thought, especially from grass roots level, where much of the work of industry, is done.

[Red Riley 2]

I agree with most of what has been said so far in the thread.

I'd also add that, in my humble opinion at least, one of the big problems we have these days is "regulations" ~ way too many of them. Organisations across both the public and private sector are totally tied up in rigidly applied procedure, right down to scripted telephone conversations, which cannot be deviated from evben though the damn fool irrelevant questions posed to customers, must be extremely irritating. There is less and less room for people to come up with original solutions to seemingly intractable problems. I myself was told; "You're not paid to think, you're paid to follow instructions to the letter and work" ~ well fair enough. That's pretty much exactly what I've done ever since, and even though I can see where things are outright incorrect, I just stay silent and follow the rule book to the letter. At the end of the day, it's managment's problem, not mine.

You also hear of people who get the sack or are disciplined for stepping outside the rule book to perform totally laudable and well intentioned actions, such as the ambulance driver who stopped out of course to help a pedestrian who had been knocked down, or the numerous others who are dismissed for whistle blowing, even in the public sector.

But really, this state of affairs is woefully negative. It stifles, initiative, enthusiasm and originality. All qualities needed to do well. Yes, there has to be structure and laid down procedures. But these should not become a strangling end in themselves. There should always be room for new ideas, and above all, originality of thought, especially from grass roots level, where much of the work of industry, is done.

On the other hand, a lack of regulations or at least effective enforcement of them has led the banking industry to its current state of international pariah and to go one stage further, another dearth of regulations has led to 12 people losing their lives in Colorado.

[Red Riley 2]

I never said a good car was defined as "affordable to joe public", in fact I specifically said "not mass market" before you moved the goalposts. Derek gave you a list of marques, to which you can add Caterham, TVR, and probably some other minority but still very good marques. As for foreign owned, just because Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Jaguar, etc have been taken over by foreign owners doesn't make the cars any less British, as they are still designed and built here, we just don't see any of the profits. Land Rover may be owned by BMW, the Mini also, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the cars are designed and built here.

The only mass market manufacturer we have left is Vauxhall who have been owned by General Motors since the 1920s. (Did Ford pack up their British operations?)

There are EIGHT F1 teams based in Britain - that includes MacLaren, Red Bull, Caterham, Force India, Lotus, among others. Just listen to the interviews when there's a GP on. Even Ferrari use some British expertise e.g. Rob Smedley who is Massa's mechanic.

Actually, I believe TVR was asset-stripped out of existence by the Russian owners; Land Rover and Jaguar are owned by Tata of India although operate very much as an independent organisation (a friend's son is a design engineer for them and he says the new owners are way better than Ford who just couldn't resist meddling). Vauxhall is really no more a British operation than Nissan, Honda or Toyota as all their cars are re-badged Opels. Ford only make components here.

Somewhere along the line though we seem to have forgotten Aston Martin...

[scottishmoney 29]

Ford and other automotive concerns were interested in short term profit for shareholders at the expense of long term viability. One does ponder the irony of Tata Motors coming in and buying up the assets of British manufacturers, a sort of "bottom rail on top now" scenario. Surely in Delhi they have a wry satisfaction...

But in reality you have to wonder what you as your own person are doing to contribute to the abysmal situation. I find myself in a situation where I would rather purchase older ie 1960's era power tools in great condition than this plastic garbage that is made to save me from myself. As bad as you might think your Chinese manufactured goods are - you are indeed fortunate for that veritable rubbish - in Eastern Europe we get the same rubbish that the Chinese foist off on their own consumers. People run around in markets lamenting how unfair it is that we get the rubbish whilst the west gets the better imports. Of course the government is more concerned with corrupting and gouging than to set a standard for imports. Indeed we have a disposable mentality whence it comes to tools, durable goods. Nothing is made with long term pursuit anymore.

Even whence there are regulatory procedures there are literal boulevards around them - those clever people in Asia have occasioned to make substitutes that slid under radars.

I am becoming to see that unless for mere raw materials, all manufacture should be localised which affords more control. Banks are surely regulated, but by the government which is indeed in their pay. They should be regulated by the borrowers, the deposit holders. There should be a lofty ethical standard that must attained.

[declanwmagee 122]

:lol:

[1949threepence 3,367]

:lol:

lol ~ "fixed" being the operative word

[HistoricCoinage 146]

[Peckris 579]

:lol:

Good one!

[scottishmoney 29]

Curiously Barclays was a Quaker started bank. But by the 1930s others took over and well we see where they are today.

[azda 979]

Curiously Barclays was a Quaker started bank. But by the 1930s others took over and well we see where they are today.

Robbing bar stewards. The whole banking system needs better regulated, but just like goverment, they do as they please, rip off customers with a £35 bank charge for going a £1 overdrawn, charge £30 to make an EU bank transaction, its free in Germany. Just shows how much the UK public are ripped off by banks. I read the other day Mercyn King forced the Barclays Chief out because he was'nt going freely...............

Edited July 22, 2012 by azda

[Red Riley 2]

Robbing bar stewards. The whole banking system needs better regulated, but just like goverment, they do as they please, rip off customers with a £35 bank charge for going a £1 overdrawn, charge £30 to make an EU bank transaction, its free in Germany. Just shows how much the UK public are ripped off by banks. I read the other day Mercyn King forced the Barclays Chief out because he was'nt going freely...............

And he's laughing all the way to the er...

[Rob 3,152]

Curiously Barclays was a Quaker started bank. But by the 1930s others took over and well we see where they are today.

Robbing bar stewards. The whole banking system needs better regulated, but just like goverment, they do as they please, rip off customers with a £35 bank charge for going a £1 overdrawn, charge £30 to make an EU bank transaction, its free in Germany. Just shows how much the UK public are ripped off by banks. I read the other day Mercyn King forced the Barclays Chief out because he was'nt going freely...............

There will always be complaints about bank charges until the true cost of a service is reflected in the fee structure. Nothing in life comes for free, every action in a business has a cost. If the banks would stop cross-subsidies and make people pay for services received, the cost of going overdrawn for example would drop. Everyone likes the idea of "free banking" just as everyone thinks the customer is ripped off when going overdrawn. One is just the quid pro quo for the other. The fairest solution would be for everyone who uses the banking industry to pay for their accurately costed services, but then that would mean everyone complaining because the banks are charging THEM for daring to write out a cheque, or use the cash dispenser, or make a transaction, or whatever. With no free lunch on the table - people will just moan whatever the situation.

[Peter 615]

I have no issue with Barclay's and have used them for Banking (business and current account and ISA's).If the Knob heads out there realise PPI and other add on's.FFS.thicko's

[scottishmoney 29]

I find that people in the West tend to "overuse" banks, which is why all the perfidious charges. I haven't had a debit/atm card in over 15 years, I don't care for being charged to withdrawal my funds from a bank. If I have to draw funds, I go into the branch and do the deed.

Surely one reason fees are so usurious these days is that the banks are having to cover their real costs - jaunts to the Algarve, extra entertaining ladies at the Playa del Sol etc.

[Peckris 579]

Curiously Barclays was a Quaker started bank. But by the 1930s others took over and well we see where they are today.

Robbing bar stewards. The whole banking system needs better regulated, but just like goverment, they do as they please, rip off customers with a £35 bank charge for going a £1 overdrawn, charge £30 to make an EU bank transaction, its free in Germany. Just shows how much the UK public are ripped off by banks. I read the other day Mercyn King forced the Barclays Chief out because he was'nt going freely...............

There will always be complaints about bank charges until the true cost of a service is reflected in the fee structure. Nothing in life comes for free, every action in a business has a cost. If the banks would stop cross-subsidies and make people pay for services received, the cost of going overdrawn for example would drop. Everyone likes the idea of "free banking" just as everyone thinks the customer is ripped off when going overdrawn. One is just the quid pro quo for the other. The fairest solution would be for everyone who uses the banking industry to pay for their accurately costed services, but then that would mean everyone complaining because the banks are charging THEM for daring to write out a cheque, or use the cash dispenser, or make a transaction, or whatever. With no free lunch on the table - people will just moan whatever the situation.

Yeah but no but yeah but no.. I can see that for everyday banking they have a right to recover their costs (though those costs are vastly reduced when enough people use their online services), but it's their investment arms that have caused all the trouble and mess we're in. If banks had stuck to what they traditionally did - lending money and taking deposits - there wouldn't be the issues we have with them, and apart from a bit of grumbling about charges (the way of the world!) we'd all get along fine. The trouble is that banks have become massive multinational corporations that operate across national boundaries, hold entire economies to ransom, have a significant hand in Third World poverty, and all in the name of profit. The Quakers who started Barclays and Lloyds would be spinning in their graves at the thought of the behemoth that banking has turned into. The Nationwide is more akin to what banks used to be, differing only in that it's a mutual.

[1949threepence 3,367]

Curiously Barclays was a Quaker started bank. But by the 1930s others took over and well we see where they are today.

Robbing bar stewards. The whole banking system needs better regulated, but just like goverment, they do as they please, rip off customers with a £35 bank charge for going a £1 overdrawn, charge £30 to make an EU bank transaction, its free in Germany. Just shows how much the UK public are ripped off by banks. I read the other day Mercyn King forced the Barclays Chief out because he was'nt going freely...............

There will always be complaints about bank charges until the true cost of a service is reflected in the fee structure. Nothing in life comes for free, every action in a business has a cost. If the banks would stop cross-subsidies and make people pay for services received, the cost of going overdrawn for example would drop. Everyone likes the idea of "free banking" just as everyone thinks the customer is ripped off when going overdrawn. One is just the quid pro quo for the other. The fairest solution would be for everyone who uses the banking industry to pay for their accurately costed services, but then that would mean everyone complaining because the banks are charging THEM for daring to write out a cheque, or use the cash dispenser, or make a transaction, or whatever. With no free lunch on the table - people will just moan whatever the situation.

What you're forgetting though, is that we are a captive audience. The vast majority of working people, and even those on benefits nowadays, have no choice but to use the banks. None of us can opt to have our wages paid in notes and coins each week, via a brown envelope, as I understand used to be the case many decades ago. We have to be paid via banks.......

,,,,,and newsflash, banks are not user friendly. Literally every single act they perpetrate, however they dress it up, is profit driven, wholly for their own convenience, and anything but for the well being of their customers. Moreover, as far no free lunch, yes, you're right. But the up front charges of banks are out of all proportion to the real cost. The stories about people going a few pence into the red for one day, and getting stung for a £35 fee, are real. They aren't Daily Mail hype, as I can duly testify.

They continue to close branches considered to be non cost effective, despite the adverse effects incurred to customers in the towns concerned. Not everybody does their banking via the internet, and need the reassurance of face to face contact, especially elderly people. Again, this is 100% based on their own convenience. They couldn't give a toss about their customers. In some places they haven't even had the courtesy to leave a free ATM.

You mentioned cheques, another old fashioned valuable facility they would like to abolish for their own convenience. Fortunately this is one area where they've found themselves squashed, and the cheque, used less, but still highly useful in certain situations, will remain beyond 2018. At least it might mean that fewer tradesmen get paid in cash and thereby avoid income tax, something that will no doubt please those politicians who now seem to be regularly offering up sanctimonious lectures about tax avoidance/evasion, whilst staying strangely silent about when the billions of bailout money will be repaid to the taxpayer (this year, next year, sometime never, probably.

So I say, roll on the challenger banks. Maybe they will act with more customer care principles in mind.....well, we can always hope

Edited July 24, 2012 by 1949threepence

[Peckris 579]

Curiously Barclays was a Quaker started bank. But by the 1930s others took over and well we see where they are today.

Robbing bar stewards. The whole banking system needs better regulated, but just like goverment, they do as they please, rip off customers with a £35 bank charge for going a £1 overdrawn, charge £30 to make an EU bank transaction, its free in Germany. Just shows how much the UK public are ripped off by banks. I read the other day Mercyn King forced the Barclays Chief out because he was'nt going freely...............

There will always be complaints about bank charges until the true cost of a service is reflected in the fee structure. Nothing in life comes for free, every action in a business has a cost. If the banks would stop cross-subsidies and make people pay for services received, the cost of going overdrawn for example would drop. Everyone likes the idea of "free banking" just as everyone thinks the customer is ripped off when going overdrawn. One is just the quid pro quo for the other. The fairest solution would be for everyone who uses the banking industry to pay for their accurately costed services, but then that would mean everyone complaining because the banks are charging THEM for daring to write out a cheque, or use the cash dispenser, or make a transaction, or whatever. With no free lunch on the table - people will just moan whatever the situation.

What you're forgetting though, is that we are a captive audience. The vast majority of working people, and even those on benefits nowadays, have no choice but to use the banks. None of us can opt to have our wages paid in notes and coins each week, via a brown envelope, as I understand used to be the case many decades ago. We have to be paid via banks.......

,,,,,and newsflash, banks are not user friendly. Literally every single act they perpetrate, however they dress it up, is profit driven, wholly for their own convenience, and anything but for the well being of their customers. Moreover, as far no free lunch, yes, you're right. But the up front charges of banks are out of all proportion to the real cost. The stories about people going a few pence into the red for one day, and getting stung for a £35 fee, are real. They aren't Daily Mail hype, as I can duly testify.

They continue to close branches considered to be non cost effective, despite the adverse effects incurred to customers in the towns concerned. Not everybody does their banking via the internet, and need the reassurance of face to face contact, especially elderly people. Again, this is 100% based on their own convenience. They couldn't give a toss about their customers. In some places they haven't even had the courtesy to leave a free ATM.

You mentioned cheques, another old fashioned valuable facility they would like to abolish for their own convenience. Fortunately this is one area where they've found themselves squashed, and the cheque, used less, but still highly useful in certain situations, will remain beyond 2018. At least it might mean that fewer tradesmen get paid in cash and thereby avoid income tax, something that will no doubt please those politicians who now seem to be regularly offering up sanctimonious lectures about tax avoidance/evasion, whilst staying strangely silent about when the billions of bailout money will be repaid to the taxpayer (this year, next year, sometime never, probably.

So I say, roll on the challenger banks. Maybe they will act with more customer care principles in mind.....well, we can always hope

And don't forget the £5 note shortage a few years back. It was apparently caused by the banks who hated them, as they couldn't dispense them in ATMs (minimum £10). I think customers protested long a loud about the number of coins they had to lug around because of the shortage, and maybe that's why they seem to be in ready supply again.

[declanwmagee 122]

I still don't use banks, unless you count PayPal, and I always spend what's in there, on coins, as fast as it comes in. We do have a building society account to cash the odd cheque we get, but again, nothing gets stored there. Even now we have bills to pay in our dream cottage, we have managed to sort everything like Council tax, electric and internet with monthly cash payments at the Post Office. The only thing we have to pay by cheque is the car insurance, so it's a once a year visit to the Building Society with a roll of those wicked banknotes. Over the counter, they write a cheque, into an envelope and off the insurance people.

I am one of those dodgy tradesmen!

So it is possible, and the more of us refuse to participate, the more power they lose. It is the moral imperative of every free man not to give your power away!

[Rob 3,152]

Curiously Barclays was a Quaker started bank. But by the 1930s others took over and well we see where they are today.

Robbing bar stewards. The whole banking system needs better regulated, but just like goverment, they do as they please, rip off customers with a £35 bank charge for going a £1 overdrawn, charge £30 to make an EU bank transaction, its free in Germany. Just shows how much the UK public are ripped off by banks. I read the other day Mercyn King forced the Barclays Chief out because he was'nt going freely...............

There will always be complaints about bank charges until the true cost of a service is reflected in the fee structure. Nothing in life comes for free, every action in a business has a cost. If the banks would stop cross-subsidies and make people pay for services received, the cost of going overdrawn for example would drop. Everyone likes the idea of "free banking" just as everyone thinks the customer is ripped off when going overdrawn. One is just the quid pro quo for the other. The fairest solution would be for everyone who uses the banking industry to pay for their accurately costed services, but then that would mean everyone complaining because the banks are charging THEM for daring to write out a cheque, or use the cash dispenser, or make a transaction, or whatever. With no free lunch on the table - people will just moan whatever the situation.

What you're forgetting though, is that we are a captive audience. The vast majority of working people, and even those on benefits nowadays, have no choice but to use the banks. None of us can opt to have our wages paid in notes and coins each week, via a brown envelope, as I understand used to be the case many decades ago. We have to be paid via banks.......

,,,,,and newsflash, banks are not user friendly. Literally every single act they perpetrate, however they dress it up, is profit driven, wholly for their own convenience, and anything but for the well being of their customers. Moreover, as far no free lunch, yes, you're right. But the up front charges of banks are out of all proportion to the real cost. The stories about people going a few pence into the red for one day, and getting stung for a £35 fee, are real. They aren't Daily Mail hype, as I can duly testify.

They continue to close branches considered to be non cost effective, despite the adverse effects incurred to customers in the towns concerned. Not everybody does their banking via the internet, and need the reassurance of face to face contact, especially elderly people. Again, this is 100% based on their own convenience. They couldn't give a toss about their customers. In some places they haven't even had the courtesy to leave a free ATM.

You mentioned cheques, another old fashioned valuable facility they would like to abolish for their own convenience. Fortunately this is one area where they've found themselves squashed, and the cheque, used less, but still highly useful in certain situations, will remain beyond 2018. At least it might mean that fewer tradesmen get paid in cash and thereby avoid income tax, something that will no doubt please those politicians who now seem to be regularly offering up sanctimonious lectures about tax avoidance/evasion, whilst staying strangely silent about when the billions of bailout money will be repaid to the taxpayer (this year, next year, sometime never, probably.

So I say, roll on the challenger banks. Maybe they will act with more customer care principles in mind.....well, we can always hope

There is no reason to be in business other than for profit. Even the sole trader who makes £10K but only needs £9K to live on is making an un-necessary profit by this way of thinking. You either make a profit or ultimately you go under as a business. Nobody owes the business owner anything. What he or she makes is the result of their endeavours. The same goes for large multi-nationals who have to roll out brands on a large scale covering a wide geographical area to cover the cost of what is typically a very efficient, but capital intensive infrastructure. In the case of banks, the profits made on the turnover passing through the business is a very small percentage indeed.

As for the customer, the option is always there to change accounts in order to take advantage of the numerous and regular sweeteners offered to attract customers by all banks. Nobody is compelled to stay with the same bank. Housewives have been shopping around for the cheapest deals on the high street since time began, there is nothing to stop bank customers doing the same. Car insurance, the same applies and most people don't think twice about changing that from year to year because we all know that renewal premiums are designed to tap the lazy wallet.

As for separating out the retail and investment banks, I wholeheartedly agree. Retail banking should be about looking after someone's money responsibly with liabilities fully covered by assets, but that would still require a bank making profits. i.e. customers being charged for the services provided at a level sufficient to cover the staff and infrastructure costs together with day to day running costs plus a profit for the owners, which by definition needs to be sufficient to cover inflation plus profit after tax. Otherwise you are throwing money away and ultimately there is no need for anyone to provide a business facility at a loss. Although the banking crisis was the result of loans that went sour, some deals are profitable. If the bad loans are the exception to the rule, then that suggests that investment banking is subsidising retail banking as a matter of course, and in the case of low cost deals or freebies to attract new customers I think this is the case. Do away with the cheap offerings, cost everything properly and pass on those costs and we have a system that is transparent and fair. That could ultimately mean higher fees.

If you want to live in a commune or return to a system of bartering where money is irrelevant, then that can work, but if you want a system where you can generate wealth to improve your personal situation, you need someone to look after the accumulated wealth and those trustees will require some recompense. If you don't want to pay them, do the hard work yourself.

Banks should be allowed to fail just as with any other business with the losses bearing first on the shareholders and others afterwards. What I do not understand is the media fixation with people who are 'ruined' because they were stupid enough to put all their eggs in one basket. There was a system in place to compensate depositors before the banking debacle which is now even more generous. If you have £100K, why put it in one place? If that system went down for a day and you needed to take out a tenner, you might as well not have the other £99990 either because you can't get your money irrespective of the amount. It doesn't take a great deal of planning to work out that risk is reduced by diversification, even if the returns are reduced. Savings of even hundreds of pounds should be spread about to eliminate risk. If the returns on deposits are too low, let the owner of those assets get off his/her backside and sweat them by using them usefully to provide the better return. A passive depositor gets the reduced returns because they are passive and have asked someone else to generate the return for them. If that is a bank, then those fees that everyone complains about are merely being recycled into interest bearing account returns, dividends etc.

[Peter 615]

Come on Peeps.We all have choices of where to stash the cash.

Keep it under the radar and buy a few coins....BTW tell rich parents to become gamblers and have drink problems and get the money out now.When I go upstairs there won't be a 1d to the taxman

[Peter 615]

Come on Peeps.We all have choices of where to stash the cash.

Keep it under the radar and buy a few coins....BTW tell rich parents to become gamblers and have drink problems and get the money out now.When I go upstairs there won't be a 1d to the taxman

When we go on holiday my mother always gives me £500 and says don't spend it on beer.(Wine and women is OK though)

[Red Riley 2]

There is no reason to be in business other than for profit. Even the sole trader who makes £10K but only needs £9K to live on is making an un-necessary profit by this way of thinking. You either make a profit or ultimately you go under as a business. Nobody owes the business owner anything. What he or she makes is the result of their endeavours. The same goes for large multi-nationals who have to roll out brands on a large scale covering a wide geographical area to cover the cost of what is typically a very efficient, but capital intensive infrastructure. In the case of banks, the profits made on the turnover passing through the business is a very small percentage indeed.

As for the customer, the option is always there to change accounts in order to take advantage of the numerous and regular sweeteners offered to attract customers by all banks. Nobody is compelled to stay with the same bank. Housewives have been shopping around for the cheapest deals on the high street since time began, there is nothing to stop bank customers doing the same. Car insurance, the same applies and most people don't think twice about changing that from year to year because we all know that renewal premiums are designed to tap the lazy wallet.

As for separating out the retail and investment banks, I wholeheartedly agree. Retail banking should be about looking after someone's money responsibly with liabilities fully covered by assets, but that would still require a bank making profits. i.e. customers being charged for the services provided at a level sufficient to cover the staff and infrastructure costs together with day to day running costs plus a profit for the owners, which by definition needs to be sufficient to cover inflation plus profit after tax. Otherwise you are throwing money away and ultimately there is no need for anyone to provide a business facility at a loss. Although the banking crisis was the result of loans that went sour, some deals are profitable. If the bad loans are the exception to the rule, then that suggests that investment banking is subsidising retail banking as a matter of course, and in the case of low cost deals or freebies to attract new customers I think this is the case. Do away with the cheap offerings, cost everything properly and pass on those costs and we have a system that is transparent and fair. That could ultimately mean higher fees.

If you want to live in a commune or return to a system of bartering where money is irrelevant, then that can work, but if you want a system where you can generate wealth to improve your personal situation, you need someone to look after the accumulated wealth and those trustees will require some recompense. If you don't want to pay them, do the hard work yourself.

Banks should be allowed to fail just as with any other business with the losses bearing first on the shareholders and others afterwards. What I do not understand is the media fixation with people who are 'ruined' because they were stupid enough to put all their eggs in one basket. There was a system in place to compensate depositors before the banking debacle which is now even more generous. If you have £100K, why put it in one place? If that system went down for a day and you needed to take out a tenner, you might as well not have the other £99990 either because you can't get your money irrespective of the amount. It doesn't take a great deal of planning to work out that risk is reduced by diversification, even if the returns are reduced. Savings of even hundreds of pounds should be spread about to eliminate risk. If the returns on deposits are too low, let the owner of those assets get off his/her backside and sweat them by using them usefully to provide the better return. A passive depositor gets the reduced returns because they are passive and have asked someone else to generate the return for them. If that is a bank, then those fees that everyone complains about are merely being recycled into interest bearing account returns, dividends etc.

To be honest, most people in full time employment lead pretty busy lives and if they chased every last penny, would end up doing nothing else. If you find that your bank is ripping you off, it's a royal pain to switch your account to another, and I have no doubt that the banks collude in making it as difficult as possible. Furthermore, the financial sector is awash with obfuscation and subterfuge, so you need to be a Professor of Mathematics to work out exactly what it is you are being charged, and whether XYZ Bank down the road is any cheaper. Ergo, the market has ceased to operate in a free and fair fashion and we, quite rightly in my view, look to government to kick arse - as nobody else will have the time.

Hence, we have come to the heavily regulated financial sector which we have at present. For many years I was an industry insider and it appeared to me that we were being virtually regulated out of existence, but it is only too easy to follow the party line when you are too close to the centre of operations to get a wider view. Although I never saw my colleagues doing anything actually illegal, some things were certainly immoral and the people being ripped off just weren't clued up enough to spot what was going on. My opinion now is that the organisations involved in the banking and insurance sectors are just too big and need to be broken down into smaller units and the role of the whistle-blower greatly strengthened and protected - it is only when those that are likely to act against the public interest are constantly looking over their shoulders that we will have a more accountable financial sector.

[Rob 3,152]

To be honest, most people in full time employment lead pretty busy lives and if they chased every last penny, would end up doing nothing else. If you find that your bank is ripping you off, it's a royal pain to switch your account to another, and I have no doubt that the banks collude in making it as difficult as possible. Furthermore, the financial sector is awash with obfuscation and subterfuge, so you need to be a Professor of Mathematics to work out exactly what it is you are being charged, and whether XYZ Bank down the road is any cheaper. Ergo, the market has ceased to operate in a free and fair fashion and we, quite rightly in my view, look to government to kick arse - as nobody else will have the time.

Hence, we have come to the heavily regulated financial sector which we have at present. For many years I was an industry insider and it appeared to me that we were being virtually regulated out of existence, but it is only too easy to follow the party line when you are too close to the centre of operations to get a wider view. Although I never saw my colleagues doing anything actually illegal, some things were certainly immoral and the people being ripped off just weren't clued up enough to spot what was going on. My opinion now is that the organisations involved in the banking and insurance sectors are just too big and need to be broken down into smaller units and the role of the whistle-blower greatly strengthened and protected - it is only when those that are likely to act against the public interest are constantly looking over their shoulders that we will have a more accountable financial sector.

Chasing every last penny is the trade off which people have to make. Customers could make their lives a lot easier by buying just the product they want in the simplest form. If you want life insurance, buy life insurance, not life insurance combined with credit card cover, house insurance and a free cup of tea on Wednesdays. You can always say no. The least opaque products are those where there is no combination of features. If something is cheaper as a bundle, you can rest assured that there is a reason.

Changing banks isn't something you would do on a daily basis, so an intermittent inconvenience shouldn't be a problem. For savings, when an account matures, look for the best vehicle to reinvest as there is plenty of info out there. If you aren't prepared to look around, you cannot expect to get the best deal offered as it will almost certainly be found elsewhere.

Mis-selling products is something that should be clamped down on, but the public's ignorance about anything and everything financial is to a large extent their own on account of indifference and laziness. It is incumbent on individuals to read the T&C on policies and it would help if they asked appropriate questions at the time a policy was taken out.

The solution is product simplicity. No bundling, and a clearly defined narrow set of criteria.

[Red Riley 2]

Chasing every last penny is the trade off which people have to make. Customers could make their lives a lot easier by buying just the product they want in the simplest form. If you want life insurance, buy life insurance, not life insurance combined with credit card cover, house insurance and a free cup of tea on Wednesdays. You can always say no. The least opaque products are those where there is no combination of features. If something is cheaper as a bundle, you can rest assured that there is a reason.

Changing banks isn't something you would do on a daily basis, so an intermittent inconvenience shouldn't be a problem. For savings, when an account matures, look for the best vehicle to reinvest as there is plenty of info out there. If you aren't prepared to look around, you cannot expect to get the best deal offered as it will almost certainly be found elsewhere.

Mis-selling products is something that should be clamped down on, but the public's ignorance about anything and everything financial is to a large extent their own on account of indifference and laziness. It is incumbent on individuals to read the T&C on policies and it would help if they asked appropriate questions at the time a policy was taken out.

The solution is product simplicity. No bundling, and a clearly defined narrow set of criteria.

With life assurance and insurance generally, you can get very simple products but the one thing that is never known is how much resources any individual company puts into the claims side of its operation. My son had some very cheap contents insurance when he was at university in Leeds. His flat was duly broken into and some expensive stuff stolen. Getting the money out of the company was like drawing teeth - quite simply they employed one knuckle scraper when half a dozen clued up individuals would do. Eventually I had to phone them every day for a month and threaten to lobby my MP before they finally coughed up. The product was cheap and simple but absolutely bloody useless. Other examples include the bank that looks good and then switches its operations to a call centre in Bangalore, the pensions company that is cheap but when you cash in early employs a market value penalty on the cash you transfer, or the life assurer who refuses to grant you ordinary rates because you had an ingrowing toenail 20 years ago.

In the 1990s, if you had asked the man in the street who was the most trusted life assurer, you may well have come up with Equitable Life. Oh dear... What I am trying to say is that with the best will in the world there are many pitfalls which transcend upfront cost and really would be outside the scope of most people to assess; it was known that Equitable had a low free asset ratio but only a few people would have known that they had given guarantees that they couldn't honour.

Yes, I agree with you about bizarre add-ons but when you get past the introductory offers, weighing up financial products is still going to be beyond most non-involved individuals' abilities - hence the need for the levels of regulation which we have today.

[Peter 615]

I still have an Equitable pension which I don't pay into but keep.I have had Financial advisers on my back for years trying to get me to transfer....they can go and do one.

I just look after my own £.The internet is full of information.I love the challenge