Parkrunner wrote: ↑6 Mar 2022 12:57
Well, yes, because there is a cost incurred by the provider in providing that service to the customer, who is the beneficiary of that service. You wouldn't expect a greengrocer to pick up the cost of providing potatoes to their customers, would you?
No argument that there is a cost - but what we have witnessed over the years is a slashing of costs by banks without adding to the services we see delivered to customers.
Once every branch would conduct transactions manually with a very personalised service in line with customer needs and demands. Computerisation has permitted banks to reduce costs (they describe it as efficiencies) whilst reducing the quality of customer care and service delivery to virtually zero.
The principle of banks holding our money, using it in turn to lend our money to others and make a substantial profit margin and giving customers a share in the form of interest on monies lodged has been abandoned by the banks.
We have not protested. You will not find a bank to offer much above 0.5% interest whilst charging borrowers between 25-45% plus multiple layers of fees and charges - and they in turn tell us they do us a a favour by handling our money.
Perhaps we have given too much ground to banks in the last 14 years on those points and the public in the form of bank customers should press for a restoration of balance. Banks could not operate if they did not have our money.
