Just paid this months credit card balance off(quite a big amount), i do it online.
the money leaves my account straight away, but takes 3-5days to go onto the credit card, loosing me a few day of interest off my current account and adds a few days interest onto the balance of the cc.
its even going from a Natwest Current Acount to a Natwest CC.
it takes 3 working days - its called BACS
AFAIK it will be changing in may - tis a bit cheeky as they earn millions from it
though if banks didnt charge fees for going overdrawn or do things like this then theyd have to start charging fees in other areas - Id rather have free banking and let the people who go overdrawn all the time etc.. pay more
Yeah theyve changed the law on it since its basically just a way of banks gathering interest and has no real requirement in the real world where banks inter transfer cash between one another constantly.
The banks say they need it for processing but they know noone believes them so finally caved.
Quotethough if banks didnt charge fees for going overdrawn or do things like this then theyd have to start charging fees in other areas - Id rather have free banking and let the people who go overdrawn all the time etc.. pay more
Thats just a lie they spin btw. Banks make far more than they need to operate from Fractional-reserve banking alone. They generate most of the money in the world using this system - they really dont need a 3 day money transfer window for clearing funds.
edit: I realise you know this already but meh :)
Although why people think they are entitled to a free service (banking) I dont know. No one thinks a cell phone company should give you free service.
i guessed it was just a way for them to make money, annoying thing is that I pay somthing stupid like £18pm for a Gold current account, think they would be nicer to me, dont seem to get any benefits.
^^^ you fool, just stick with the free one !
chances are, most of the stuff they give you for your £18 you can either get for free anyway, or its just cheaper to pay for it when you need it... travel insurance etc...
Quote from: SamAlthough why people think they are entitled to a free service (banking) I dont know. No one thinks a cell phone company should give you free service.
because they are effectively gambling my money to make more money for them. Im lending them something in order to get it back when i need it. they know that not everyone will need all of their money at the same time, so they can move it about in markets, or mortgage books in order to try and make money.
comparing it to mobile phones where you are provided a service is apples and oranges.
Matt
Quote from: SamAlthough why people think they are entitled to a free service (banking) I dont know. No one thinks a cell phone company should give you free service.
Because its not a free service. Its in no way similar to a telecoms company.
The banks are lending out more money than they physcially own and gambling it. Thats why I mentioned the fractional-reserve system. The banks are generating cash purely on the basis that we wont all try and take our money out because theyre massively overextending themselves beyond their physical assets and can only do that until people start withdrawing money. their entire business model reliles on us.
If everyone stops using a telecoms company then they simply stop making money, stop providing the service and go bust (with some minor overheads for contracts and wages/pension obligations). Banks on the other hand dont just go down - they have gambled our money so cant repay it. So they cost us money they didnt actually own (it was ours) but also then take down the entire wealth they generated on that cash they didnt own which will be many times the initial investment.
Banks are free because they only exist with our money invested. If it was simply a storage of cash system (which is how they present themselves) then they could justify a charge but theyre not. They lend the money we keep there out to other people at a profit.
Without us putting money in from the real economy they go bankrupt instantly... Kind of like exactly whats happening right now.
lol exactly like ByteJunkie said.
Their fee is the fractional-reserve system.
Quote from: SteveFQuote from: SamAlthough why people think they are entitled to a free service (banking) I dont know. No one thinks a cell phone company should give you free service.
Because its not a free service. Its in no way similar to a telecoms company.
The banks are lending out more money than they physcially own and gambling it. Thats why I mentioned the fractional-reserve system. The banks are generating cash purely on the basis that we wont all try and take our money out because theyre massively overextending themselves beyond their physical assets and can only do that until people start withdrawing money. their entire business model reliles on us.
If everyone stops using a telecoms company then they simply stop making money, stop providing the service and go bust (with some minor overheads for contracts and wages/pension obligations). Banks on the other hand dont just go down - they have gambled our money so cant repay it. So they cost us money they didnt actually own (it was ours) but also then take down the entire wealth they generated on that cash they didnt own which will be many times the initial investment.
Banks are free because they only exist with our money invested. If it was simply a storage of cash system (which is how they present themselves) then they could justify a charge but theyre not. They lend the money we keep there out to other people at a profit.
Without us putting money in from the real economy they go bankrupt instantly... Kind of like exactly whats happening right now.
I know how banks work, but they are still providing you a service for nothing, even if they are making money from your money.
Quote from: bytejunkieQuote from: SamAlthough why people think they are entitled to a free service (banking) I dont know. No one thinks a cell phone company should give you free service.
because they are effectively gambling my money to make more money for them. Im lending them something in order to get it back when i need it. they know that not everyone will need all of their money at the same time, so they can move it about in markets, or mortgage books in order to try and make money.
comparing it to mobile phones where you are provided a service is apples and oranges.
Matt
To be honest do the banks really need your twelve pounds fifty ?
The average person will run a low balance. They want your savings accounts, thats where the majority of their asserts come from. I dont suppose they give a sh*t about your pocket money.
Dave will prolly know more, hell be along shortly.
Quote from: SamI know how banks work, but they are still providing you a service for nothing, even if they are making money from your money.
If you know how they work then youre missing the point. Theyre not providing a service for nothing. Theyre applying risk to your cash. Investing in risk gives the investor money in return. That risk that you and I are taking in using that bank is what pays the fee. Now the risk to the individual of keeping money as savings with a bank is more than the cost of holding the cash. The rest is made up of interest paid on the savings.
The fee is taken directly out of the risk taken by the investor. Its not a service for nothing. Its a service for risk. Its just a relatively low risk compared to other methods of saving.
Theres no risk to us. The govt covers our cash.
this is pretty simple guys - banks make X amount from fees, BACS transfers etc,,, - take away those revenue streams and theyll just find another way to replace them - it isnt in their interests to just sit back become less profitable now is it.
Quote from: SamAlthough why people think they are entitled to a free service (banking) I dont know. No one thinks a cell phone company should give you free service.
if banks wasnt free Id stuff all my money under me pillow
Quote from: SamTheres no risk to us. The govt covers our cash.
negative captain, if a bank fails the govt may choose to bail them out, or it may not. theres no law states that they have to.
Northern Rock - govt stepped in to save little people.
Barings Bank - people with lots of money to lose lost lots of money.
Matt
Quote from: Davethis is pretty simple guys - banks make X amount from fees, BACS transfers etc,,, - take away those revenue streams and theyll just find another way to replace them - it isnt in their interests to just sit back become less profitable now is it.
Thanks for simplifying it but the point is they dont do it for free - we pay for it. Sam missed that.
Technically they are having those revenue streams removed and theres a fair chance that they wont find a direct replacement for them.
And Sam your money really isnt safe at all. The bank backing in the US is going to cause huge amounts of inflation, combined with a slumping real economy is the worst thing possible for savings. Because the central bank is printing more cash to back the banks isnt the same as securing the money. Its the same as securing the banks and lighting the touch paper on inflation. Devaluing everyone in the USs savings. Plus its borderline illegal as Bear Stearns is being funded through an intermediary.
Quote from: bytejunkieQuote from: SamTheres no risk to us. The govt covers our cash.
negative captain, if a bank fails the govt may choose to bail them out, or it may not. theres no law states that they have to.
financial services compensation scheme does actually guarantee deposits up to 33000 - 100% of the first 2000 and 90% of the rest (edit - actually this has been changed to offer more coverage after NR)
QuoteTechnically they are having those revenue streams removed and theres a fair chance that they wont find a direct replacement for them.
doubt it very much - the just need to restructure their charges which they will do.
Quote from: bytejunkieQuote from: SamTheres no risk to us. The govt covers our cash.
negative captain, if a bank fails the govt may choose to bail them out, or it may not. theres no law states that they have to.
Northern Rock - govt stepped in to save little people.
Barings Bank - people with lots of money to lose lost lots of money.
Matt
Positive captain.
As Dave points out we are protected up to 30K or something per bank, so if you have 90K put it in 3 banks and you cannot ever lose a penny.
unless the protection (basically printing money) causes inflation, which it will...
That statement makes no sense SF.
For a start its been there for donkeys and inflation hasnt reached 1000% yet.
And secondly, inflation doesnt remove the protection. You should word your statement more carefully as, "the level of protection falls in real terms over time due to inflation"
I think 30K will be a lot of money for a while to come though, dont you? (Perhaps you dont in which case buy me an ipod).
Im still annoyed that we arent operating on futuristic credits
Quote from: SamPositive captain.
As Dave points out we are protected up to 30K or something per bank,
only if theyre in the FSCS scheme. and Im willing to bet my lunch that you didnt double protect that you were check the last time you invested money.
edit - it seems regulation by the FSA implies membersip of the FSCS. so were all pretty much covered.
Matt
I think inflation will wreck the US and I think itll be a bigger crisis than the recession if Im honest.
Quote from: SamI think 30K will be a lot of money for a while to come though, dont you? (Perhaps you dont in which case buy me an ipod).
£300 isnt a lot of money. If youre paying 30k for an ipod youre stuffed. ;)
£300 could be a months shopping for a family of four. Id say its a lot of money, certainly not little enough to be frivolous with. I think a lot of people on this forum would be gutted to lose £300, financially as well as emotionally.
True. I personally dont think £300 is a lot of money but I appreciate that its a lot to someone in India. If I lost £300 Id be a bit annoyed at myself but dont think it would really bother me beyond kicking myself for being stupid.
I did however assume we were talking about professional people who could afford to spend money picking a high end mobile phone. The same person spending £300 on food for a family of 4 is never going to be in this market (or this thread).
edit: and frankly people who are fussed about £300 arent going to have enough investment or savings for any of this stuff to make the slightest difference. People with $30k+ savings are.
stuff India, its a lot of money to me!
Thats 3 months food and would go further if I actually tried to stretch it.
Its also a months rent, and a weeks pay.
Do you have enough savings to care about inflation or bank protection beyond the government minimum tho? If not then youre exempt from the group of people it matters to.
edit: its not even a third of my rent. It is a months council tax tho I guess...
Not enough savings to worry, but my income is essentially fixed for the next 3 years so if inflation goes silly I have a problem, or at least a pay cut in real terms.
Quote from: bytejunkieQuote from: SamPositive captain.
As Dave points out we are protected up to 30K or something per bank,
only if theyre in the FSCS scheme. and Im willing to bet my lunch that you didnt double protect that you were check the last time you invested money.
edit - it seems regulation by the FSA implies membersip of the FSCS. so were all pretty much covered.
Matt
Actually I did. I have money in first save and icici and wanted to check they were covered. Please send me $10 by paypal for my burrito tomorrow.
Quote from: SteveFTrue. I personally dont think £300 is a lot of money but I appreciate that its a lot to someone in India. If I lost £300 Id be a bit annoyed at myself but dont think it would really bother me beyond kicking myself for being stupid.
I did however assume we were talking about professional people who could afford to spend money picking a high end mobile phone. The same person spending £300 on food for a family of 4 is never going to be in this market (or this thread).
edit: and frankly people who are fussed about £300 arent going to have enough investment or savings for any of this stuff to make the slightest difference. People with $30k+ savings are.
First of all #300 is a lot of most people. While we all wouldnt have to sell our shirts we damn well would be pissed off. I get pissed off if I spend #2 I dont have to.
And secondly, Nige said it was a lot of money, and that is unrelated to the topic of 30K savings.
My HSBC shares have recently collapsed from £2k to under £900 and do I look like Im crying?*
*wrings out hankie into nearly full bucket...
Shrewd people that mind their money are usually the ones that end up in the situations of having lots of the stuff. Those that arnt froogle and spend it with disregard never have a pot to piss in. Anyone okay with writing off £300 doesnt appreciate the value of the stuff.
Quote from: Clockd 0NeShrewd people that mind their money are usually the ones that end up in the situations of having lots of the stuff. Those that arnt froogle and spend it with disregard never have a pot to piss in. Anyone okay with writing off £300 doesnt appreciate the value of the stuff.
So youre loaded? Plenty of money? How froogle are you really?
It all depends on how much you have and how much it means to you.
And from the other side theres no risk, no gain. TBH if I lost* £300 tomorrow I would definitely be miffed but it wouldnt be the end of the world by any means.
*any suitable, fit _FEMALE_ who would like to do some services in order to find themselves £300 welcome**
** needs to be good looking, breathing, have a pulse and be over 16 years of age, preferably 18-30. Ability to deep throat advantageous.***
*** this does not include knightys brother in a skirt
Its not a trivial amount but I still dont think it would count as a lot of money. I know people have different living costs/expenses. I think Ill never convince you its not a lot of money and youll never convince me it is. As everyone has different levels of what they consider a lot of money. I think were getting off topic tho. I said inflation f**ks you. you said 30k is a lot of money (which it is and makes you more vulnerable to inflation) and then you asked to be sent £300 for no reason. Youre the only one who brought it up...
And tbh I just dropped £100 on rubber ducks this afternoon for a laugh with a mate (www.justducks.co.uk). I dont consider that a lot of money and I get nothing for that other than a laugh when she opens a box full of ducks and thinks what the hell?
The point is you made two statements:
1) people shouldnt expect banks to be free - I tried to explain they are charging you and even told you how it was broken down. If you pay a fee for banking then you get more interest by about the same amount. No fee, they decrease your interest by that amount. Thats not free. you didnt comprehend that.
2) Your money is totally safe in a bank. but its not - its only guaranteed by the fed printing money. the US is going into (or already in) a recession. Their printing cash cant be sustained by the real economy which means theyre devaluing the cash in circulation. This is called inflation. The more savings you have in banks, the more cash you will lose by not changing your investment vehicle out of cash. This only affects people with a reasonable amount of cash in savings. Anyone with decent chunk of savings isnt going to notice £300 in any real way.
The people posting here and saying oh my gosh, £300 is life changing for me are totally right. But they arent the ones with the savings who need protecting and at risk from inflation. So kind of irrelevant to the effects and just protesting because they feel affronted that £300 is a lot to them and its being dismissed.
Quote from: Clockd 0NeShrewd people that mind their money are usually the ones that end up in the situations of having lots of the stuff. Those that arnt froogle and spend it with disregard never have a pot to piss in. Anyone okay with writing off £300 doesnt appreciate the value of the stuff.
Thats not true - some of the richest people I know throw money away like its nothing.
The difference is they just work a bit harder or a few more hours and earn it back. They may not appreciate the value it has to you but for them £300 may be of relatively low value.
If you earn minimum wage £300 is a lot. If you earn £20 an hour its 2 days off work. If you earn £40 an hour its an afternoon or a bit of overtime. And theres a lot of people earning more than £40 an hour.
Devaluing <> inflation, they are two separate processes.
Quote from: SteveFThats not true - some of the richest people I know throw money away like its nothing.
I dont doubt that at all Steve. Im not saying rich people are tight and spend sod all.
But I also bet at the same time they know exactly what they afford to toss off and what counts in their accounts, or they wouldnt stay rich for very long, pretty much in the same way a superstar might throw a quarter million at a birthday bash just for fun.
Just look at the number of lottery winners that have spent it all and wound up with nothing again.
Quote from: SteveFIts not a trivial amount but I still dont think it would count as a lot of money. I know people have different living costs/expenses. I think Ill never convince you its not a lot of money and youll never convince me it is. As everyone has different levels of what they consider a lot of money. I think were getting off topic tho. I said inflation f**ks you. you said 30k is a lot of money (which it is and makes you more vulnerable to inflation) and then you asked to be sent £300 for no reason. Youre the only one who brought it up...
And tbh I just dropped £100 on rubber ducks this afternoon for a laugh with a mate (www.justducks.co.uk). I dont consider that a lot of money and I get nothing for that other than a laugh when she opens a box full of ducks and thinks what the hell?
The point is you made two statements:
1) people shouldnt expect banks to be free - I tried to explain they are charging you and even told you how it was broken down. If you pay a fee for banking then you get more interest by about the same amount. No fee, they decrease your interest by that amount. Thats not free. you didnt comprehend that.
2) Your money is totally safe in a bank. but its not - its only guaranteed by the fed printing money. the US is going into (or already in) a recession. Their printing cash cant be sustained by the real economy which means theyre devaluing the cash in circulation. This is called inflation. The more savings you have in banks, the more cash you will lose by not changing your investment vehicle out of cash. This only affects people with a reasonable amount of cash in savings. Anyone with decent chunk of savings isnt going to notice £300 in any real way.
The people posting here and saying oh my gosh, £300 is life changing for me are totally right. But they arent the ones with the savings who need protecting and at risk from inflation. So kind of irrelevant to the effects and just protesting because they feel affronted that £300 is a lot to them and its being dismissed.
No one is saying that £300 is the sum of a lifes work.
We are merely saying that we dont know anyone who is rich enough to go sod it its only £300 and not care at all.
If I lost a ten dollar bill from my wallet Id be pissed off but its not like I cant afford ten dollars.
Quote from: SteveFIts not a trivial amount but I still dont think it would count as a lot of money. I know people have different living costs/expenses. I think Ill never convince you its not a lot of money and youll never convince me it is. As everyone has different levels of what they consider a lot of money. I think were getting off topic tho. I said inflation f**ks you. you said 30k is a lot of money (which it is and makes you more vulnerable to inflation) and then you asked to be sent £300 for no reason. Youre the only one who brought it up...
And tbh I just dropped £100 on rubber ducks this afternoon for a laugh with a mate (www.justducks.co.uk). I dont consider that a lot of money and I get nothing for that other than a laugh when she opens a box full of ducks and thinks what the hell?
The point is you made two statements:
1) people shouldnt expect banks to be free - I tried to explain they are charging you and even told you how it was broken down. If you pay a fee for banking then you get more interest by about the same amount. No fee, they decrease your interest by that amount. Thats not free. you didnt comprehend that.
Banks dont charge me a penny. There are no charges on my account and there is no risk to my money. I do comprehend what you are saying and replying with "well they might give you more money if you paid a fee" is not the same as them charging me now. Especially as 99% of the population have twelve pounds in their account and dont even any interest anyway. 5% or 7% on £12, wow Ill order the merc now.
Quote from: SteveF2) Your money is totally safe in a bank. but its not - its only guaranteed by the fed printing money. the US is going into (or already in) a recession. Their printing cash cant be sustained by the real economy which means theyre devaluing the cash in circulation. This is called inflation. The more savings you have in banks, the more cash you will lose by not changing your investment vehicle out of cash. This only affects people with a reasonable amount of cash in savings. Anyone with decent chunk of savings isnt going to notice £300 in any real way.
My money is TOTALLY safe in a bank and let me explain to you. The only way I am not going to get my money back if my bank collapse is if the entire financial system collapses around it. And if that happens I wont have to pay back my mortgage will I.
Therefore Id be quite happy to lose x when I owe 5x.
Thanks for explaining - I think I understand now
As with the UK government backing the banks here the US does the same there, if they didnt then the result would be a massive meltdown of the financial structure when something like the present sub-prime lending crisis happens. That would lead to a worldwide depression. Banks are effectively guaranteed to be a safe bet to put your money into.
This is not the same as owning shares in banks, those can go caput, its just that others will take over. Even if Sams bank collapsed his money would be still there, because its loaned out to other people and guaranteed by the government. Same as his mortgage, he owes debt on it, that can be traded if the bank collapses to another lender, and that money would pay back those who had lent the bank.
The one issue on this is a run on the banks, where a lot of people lose confidence and begin withdrawing all their money. Usually the bank(s) in question will pay out as much as possible and then close their doors. The bank hasnt gone bankrupt, the peoples money is still there, just as debt owed by others. The bank has no actual cash left to pay them though.
I earn over 60k.pa and I think 300 quid is a lot of money - as would anyone I know! Bear in mind average salary in NI is maybe half of that in london. As is the cost of living.
In fact - my boss earns about (edit - had too much!) 0.5m a year before investments, and he thinks that £50 is an unbearable amount to lose