Topic: Not all banks are going bust. (Read 328 times)

Nowadays, institutions such as banking are institutions that are always sought after and used by many people for certain things, including doing business because business people sometimes also need banking services when they want to make transactions of a certain amount. But after recently there have been several banks that have gone bankrupt, of course the banks are still not bankrupt and are still surviving to continue serving their customers, they definitely still want to make bigger promotions in order to be able to attract more customers who have fled from other banks to enter the bank.

And yes, I think this is a very common practice for every institution like banking because basically they can operate more easily when there are lots of customers who save money with them. And from what has been seen so far, indeed there are still very many banks that are still alive by continuing to operate better so that not all of them (banks) are bankrupt at this time.

         This is the marketing ploy of this institution. It is highly likely that it was the calculation to attract a new flow of customers. In principle, there is nothing new in this. If possible, they distribute money to their clients, and they convey information to their friends, acquaintances, etc. We decided to recall the word of mouth method. By the way, this approach to advertising shows itself well, but something about it is not so often remembered in recent years. It's time to remember the forgotten.

i believe that not all banks are bad, there are still good ones who run their business and still pay attention to their customers, like this Nationwide. those exposed by the media are only some of the big players which makes the banking industry look bad, even though if it is managed properly cases such as the signature bank, first republic bank, or various other banking cases can be avoided.

It reminds me of malicious lending that was assessed as a major contributor to the financial crisis in 2008. This places great emphasis on the ethics and social responsibility of banks when do business. Malicious lending and a focus on large international companies can also have benefits. Centralizing funding for large companies can ensure that money is distributed efficiently and used to generate higher returns for investors and shareholders. However, this could also affect the provision of financial services to lowincome people and small businesses, reducing equality in financial access. The reevaluation of banking policies and the correlation between profitability and social responsibility remains controversial. Bank decisions have a direct impact on the economy and communities, and so banks need to make decisions with consideration and responsibility.

When an ineffective bank management will meet an ineffective government regulation why will it make a future better? Governmental management is less effective than a competitive private, so government shouldn't interfere where it is not really necessary. Additional regulation without a critical reason is not a good idea. Even if I don't like bank system as it is it doesn't mean that I'd like to see something even worst, totally governmental banking system! 😂

I think some banks are doing better because they had better investments, and some banks will collapse because they had bad investments and that is the difference, we are going to see that happen a lot better and a lot more.

I however believe that all banks should be regulated a lot more and that will cause some of them to bankrupt, but I am fine with making them publicly owned, and that means our tax money will go towards making banks do better and not "saving" a bank, but actually owning them. This will make sure that everyone gets their money, any private bank can follow up the laws, and any who can't will be just publicly owned by the government. Like it or not, that will make the future a lot better for everyone without a doubt.

Don't think badly of their wallets, they can hold much, much more! But it is a way of not so expensive advertising: you give £100 for a client and then your clients spread the word about the generosity of their bank. And as you can see, it works. Moreover if I wanted to search a bank for some purpose it can be a good advertisement that they have extra money for that and are not in need. In another hand they can be in need and imitate stability... But well, it will work in this case also, I guess.

The previous Banking crisis was caused by Fractional reserve banking, where only a fraction of bank deposits are required to be available for withdrawal, the rest are loaned out to lenders. This is the building blocks of any Banks, no matter how big you are.

You do not have to loan money to foreign countries to have toxic loans, it can happen with local loans too, when they have reckless lending practices. Do you know what amount of money do your Bank have to have in reserve, according to your local laws?

That's amazing. It isn't indeed a bank in the full sense because I have yet to receive a share of any of my bank's profit however huge it may be. The profit is always theirs. I'm only given the standard less than 0.1% per annum for my savings. And they're using my money to make wealth.

It seems your bank is like financial cooperatives here in my country. I also have an account in one of them and I get a nice slice of its profit every year. It depends on how much money you have in your account, but it doesn't go down lower than 10% of it per annum.

The way banks treat customers with a positive account balance might be considered more favorable than those with a negative balance. However, these two types of customers complement each other, as when a customer with a credit balance pays their bills on time, it ensures a smooth flow of money within the banking system.

As a customer, receiving a benefit of 180 Euros within three months is extremely advantageous. You need Nationwide to safeguard your money, but surprisingly, Nationwide rewards you for keeping your money with them. Is it possible that this only applies to customers with a certain account balance?

---

And now I find myself captivated by Nationwide after reading @Jet Cash's story. Is that strategy truly casting a spell on me? 

100 euros is a considerable amount for a customer gift. Perhaps they are pushing to offer incentives, such as cash rewards or gifts, that can be an effective way to garner interest and increase customer engagement. While economic uncertainties and interest rate fluctuations can actually have different effects on the banking sector, gift giving like this contributes to more trust and increased exposure to customers. This can also contribute to improving and promoting customer care, which is very important in the banking and finance industries.

Presumably they only do this to creditors who hold a balance large enough to sustain the banks profitability. "Incentive payment" is what they call it when it's in effect an interest payment bonus.

Not all banks are required to do this, so I'd take it as a kind gesture on behalf of the banks. Surely the banks would have had to pay taxes on the profits anyways so whether it was transferred to you or stayed within the system it still would have been taxed. That is, unless the banks do some clever accounting.

Does this mean their toxic loan schemes has led to huge wealth collection and that’s not fitting right within the accounting books? This is why they are giving away money to their premium clients like you! I am not sure what to take from this incidence and why any bank or financial institute just give away money like that. Banks are one of the institutes that are known to be Money lynchers. Lolz.
I don’t know if that is the proper wording but yeah they keep sucking money and yet they feel it’s not much for them. The only reason they end up in bankruptcy and bad scheme give away is because of the suspicious practices such as the one you have explained here.

Taking loan from banks will hypnotized you your right to freedom, that is why in cryptocurrency we don't take loan because we don't want to be in an everlasting debt, whereas in cryptocurrency you have that opportunity to recover your debt through the investment you made which gives you the freedom needed to shield you against inflation or any economy imbalance challenges with the financial system

Banks are competing with each other and now they are competing with crypto also. So they don't want to bust not today only but in the future as well. Having contented and loyal customers makes a bank more stable. If they don't make big mistakes and they satisfy their customers then probably they can succeed. £100 per client is probably in proportion of what they spend on advertising and you show that it works: you feel that your bank is okay, that your bank is not too greedy and cares about clients, that your bank is managed well. Well, they did it successfully! My congrats to you and to them!

I think this is the main reason for governments' hostility to decentralized cryptocurrencies, through the centralization of banks, governments can control citizens and keep them submissive through debt or control financial transactions.

If we look further, we find that the same policy is followed to control poor countries with large internal wealth through control of large international banks and the International Monetary Fund as well.

Where rich countries that control the International Monetary Fund lend large loans to poor countries that they are unable to repay, and thus their policy becomes hostage to rich countries and their national wealth becomes the property of these countries.

well, it depends on how they manage their customers' money. Those who sometimes offer lots of promotions as if they were the best bank actually became the fastest bank to bankrupt. I'm sure the bank that really deserves to be the bank that lasts the longest is the one that really carries out its functions like a bank in general without exaggerating and has a sharp analysis of financial circulation.

The equivalent of finding a golden ticket in a Wonka bar would be this situation. A cut of the profits going back to Nationwide's patrons? That's about as unusual as a unicorn, especially given the general public's negative perception of banks. But there is an important qualifier to keep in mind. Nationwide has established a stronghold of conservative practises, avoiding risky endeavours such as making loans to developing countries or dabbling in volatile financial products. But wouldn't that also mean missing out on some interesting prospects? After all, luck shines upon the brave.

And holy cow, isn't your comparison to the consolidation of banks dead on? It's like a real-life version of Monopoly, but the wealthy get all the property and the poor have to fight over the leftovers. Toxic loans concentrate money and power like sly 'chance' cards in our favourite game. Funny thing is, we complain about banks all the time, but we still rush to put our money in their hands. What a perfect example of a broken relationship!

Wow, the bank is very generous by sharing the profits with its users freely, because they can hide the profits only for the bank itself and I have never found a bank in my country that does this, usually, they will only do a giveaway in a certain period by giving tickets numbers to users who have a certain balance every month to enter in the draw and this is just a marketing trick to attract more users. Usually, banks will prefer to take a lot of profit from their users with large monthly fees, but your bank is very generous in doing this.
It is true that not all banks will go bust, but even if they fail because of their mistakes in management it is not a mistake of use, and it can also happen because of channeling loans on uncertain business or on creditors who do not have sufficient assets.

 I believe this bank has been able to catch your fancy to the point of sharing the experience here because of their ability to have understood and anticipated your needs. What sets agencies apart is their tendency to think outside the box and if what I've read is right, they just did that.
 Other banks have being going under probably as a result of not being able to meet up obligations to creditors and depositors which is prompted by the assets falling below the market value.

That's a great bank that you have shared their benefits with regard to having too much money and profiting from the events that happened or whatever that they have.

Is it because they can lessen taxes or something? Or maybe as dividends?

That's great, I hope all banks are like that to their clients. But you mentioned that it's not really a bank, right? but included in the Mutual Building Society category, how is it that despite the fact that it is not a bank in real terms, they are able to issue credit cards, and even offer mortgages as if the system is also a bank?
Are there any resources of this business you are talking about? probably there is, because if it doesn't have other assets, it will appear where they get the incentives they give every month to their qualified clients in this regard?

Yes it is not all bank are going to bust in fact the bank has been act as a key for the economy for the past century. I think what happen to recent bank collapse is economic instability and pretty much lots of going on in the real world.

Covid, War, Economic War, and the child is recession and inflation.

That's why you are more like a referral now; you have invited someone out of your good will and the love you have for the bank to invite someone else over who you want to experience what's actually happened over there.

I actually agree with the fact that not all banks will burst. But this is not the main case here.
We are actually talking about the bonus with which a particular financial sector rewarded each of their customers £100, of which Jet Cash was also a benefactor. This could be a result of either the bank sharing their accumulated profit across all their customers or selecting their customers based on certain criteria.

There is no way all banks will go burst, remember some of these banks are well-managed and there are some with too-big-to-fail status though they are all greedy bastards. The good ones and well-capitalized ones will swallow the bad ones and close to bankruptcy banks, this is not peculiar to banks but all businesses, just look at the number of businesses that have folded up since last year and we are still counting. The strong ones will remain and the weak ones will die this is how human being survived over the centuries

This is impressive but on the other hand if you look at it very well you will understand that they are as well doing marketing to attract more customers, especially since you said they don't operate as bank but to me they have intention to starts operating as bank. This actions was to call more attention to their customers and to continue storing and saving their funds under their custody and same time deciding to make some free giveaway to their costumes for more visibility.

Typical example of what they did is you posting about them here, same way too others could post them on their preferred platform and this would stair up those around that country and same region to starting making use of them. Do you now see why I said they are doing that to gain more visibility?
That is a good strategies to do their promotion and gain more popularity.

This means that the performance of the bank that you said was very good for that year. So, it's only natural to get a profit sharing of £100 from the bank, also supported by the value of the savings. Of course, the story of providing services to private investors is a different story.

Well, My view is that why small banks leave is not entirely caused by toxic loans, but this involves many complex factors, including market dynamics, government policies, the economic conditions of the relevant banks which are considered to have made the wrong decision. For example in the case of lending that is not on target on a large scale which is seen as not meeting the target after their internal audit and it could also be unforeseen economic factors.

I think the payment was a one off gesture.
The restrictions on the Nationwide are for it to provide a service to personal investors. They can't lend to businesses or corporatuiions. Although having said that, I intoduced the owner of the local pub to the Portman ( the society that was taken over by the Nationwide), and he used it for the pub account, but this was because he was a soile trader, and it was in his name.

I'm a bit of a cynic, and I'm not sure that the payment was a wholly altruistic act. The UK government is scratchung around for extra things to tax. Energy companies and some othersare always being considered for "windfall" taxes. It may be that the Nationwide felt that giving its members a bonus may take it off the radar for a windfall tax. Of course it may just be that they are nice people running the society.

It's actually a great news that your bank, Nationwide, is rewarding eligible customers with a £100 payment under their fairer share policy. As a mutual building society, Nationwide operates differently from traditional banks, with customers having an interest in its profitability. It's interesting to note that their profitability may be attributed to the government restrictions on certain activities, which prevent them from engaging in risky lending practices.

Your perspective on the abundance of toxic loans in the banking industry and its impact on smaller banks and wealth distribution is thought-provoking. While it's true that the financial crisis revealed significant issues with toxic loans and their effect on the global economy, it's important to note that regulatory measures have been implemented to mitigate such risks and promote stability in the banking sector.

The banking landscape continues to evolve, with a focus on stricter regulations and transparency. However, it's worth considering diverse viewpoints and engaging in constructive discussions to foster a more inclusive and equitable financial system.

I think it's really nice if a bank or something bank-like is giving customers a bonus payment because they had a good year. I'm not sure that the restrictions are what made some banks profitable, but then again, it's possible. At least there can be a correlation there. It may be unexpected to people from other countries, but Ukrainian banks are doing really well now, during the war. For example, in January 2023, 90% of Ukrainian banks made the highest revenue since the start of the full-scale war, but also, the banking sector accumulated reserves in 2022 which are 35x higher than in 2021. Financial restrictions were also introduced because of the martial law. I don't think there's a strong case for a causal link here, but it's an interesting correlation.

      -   When did you start there mate? Are there any requirements given to the mutual building society you are talking about? Did you take any money out there? then how many times did you receive that amount?

That seems okay after all, then it seems like you're doing nothing, you're just waiting for the month to end and then you'll receive something again? It seems that there is something similar here in our country, but later our government closed it down, gave a disease order and the founder was also at large. But they seem to be a little bit different from other things.

The government did not completely restrict loan if you read the post well you would have seen the restrictions was giving load to institution and businesses outside the region with in this case is UK. Actually it may seem unfair to people outside their region but it's very much going to help institution and business inside the UK.

Also on the other hand the government are restricting the amount of financial Bodies that has the freedom to give out loans outside the country, I think it is a plot to be able to centralize the system and be able to have full control of it,  but such banks in the op context would not even mind those restrictions going by their name NATIONWIDE I believe their target is with in the nation and they must have been successful at that.

Many banks in my country also make interesting offers to their customers. And that's okay.
For example, for the IT sector, free issuance and maintenance of Visa Platinum class cards, but with a full range of additional services, which is very beneficial.
Also, many banks have programs for the return of funds from any purchases made with a card. It can be from 0.5% to 10% depending on the type of services / services paid by the card. For example:
Medicine / medications - 2%
Clothing - 2.25%
Food - 1%
Cinemas - 10%
Taxi - 5%

For the year, the amount of the refund is significantly more than the specified 100 euros.

That's very true, not all banks are going to burst and that's because they're not doing the things this other banks that have collapse has been doing. They make use of customers savings without letting the customers knowledge and when they come to collect their money the banks begin to give excuses or say they don't have money. If banks stay true to the services that they are suppose to be rendering they won't collapse.

I hope they'll continue paying the £100 because when they stop they'll also be criticize as the other banks. New businesses loves giving out bonuses that they can't keep up. This might just be a marketing strategy by your bank to get new customers but I hope it last.

Some banks are managed quite well, while other banks are managed in a corrupt and incompetent way. We can't put all banks in one category.
Repeating "banks are bad, crypto is good" is one of the few things that annoys me about Bitcoin/crypto maximalism. The commercial banks aren't all bad, the central banks with their money printing machines are the ones, who are ruining the financial sector.
Saying that banks are bad, only because they are centralized is also a bit delusional. The crypto exchanges are also centralized. There are multiple examples of centralized entities being successful.

The Nationwide is one of the few building societies left in the UK. Building societies are a bit like the US savings and loan companies. They were created to help people save up and buy houses. You lent money to the society whilst you were saving, and they lent the money to house buyers so that they could pay interest. The government imposed quite a few restrictions on them, and this was intended to protect savers. For example, they cannot open accounts for businesses, or lend to commercial enterprises. Initially they didn't offer banking services, but with the arrival of computers, they started to introduce some bank facilities. They aren't members of the bank clearing association, so they have to clear cheques through a clearing bank, but that isn't a problem for most people. They offer the faster payments service, and this allows me to pay up to £100,000 to another UK bank account, and the money clears in under 1 minute. There is no charge for this transfer. I was originally a member of the Portman building society, and about 25 years ago that was bought by the Nationwide. As depositors are members, I got a cash payment for that, and I have been with the Nationwide ever since.Many of the other building societies were bought by clearing banks, and they lost their status as a result. For example The Halifax ( the largest at the time ) was bought by Lloyds Bank.
There are some other benefits as well. For example, I pay for my hosting and domain renewals in US dollars, and I don't pay a transaction fee for these international payments on my credit card. The exchange rate is very competitive as well. Another unusual payment that I don't understand is cash back on my debit card. I was rewarded with £10 per month for using my debit card instead of my credit card to make payments for groceries in some of the largest supermarkets. This only lasted for 3 months, and it must have been funded by the supermarkets. Still it was another £30 I picked up for no additional effort. I know these amounts are small, but they do mount up. The 3 payments I have mentioned in this forum - £50+£30+£100, are already at £180, and that is just in 3 months.

I have friends who belittle me for bothering with these amounts, and some of them throw away small coins as annoyances. One of them couldn't afford his electricity payment last winter ( he is on a prepayment system), and had to sit at home in the dark with a blanket over him. He doesn't seem to realise that small savings mount up, and can make quite a difference to your quality of life.

Here in Canada, Banks have these incentives from time to time. Last one I got was like $300 to just open a chequing account at a bank and leave a balance for 3 months and make a few bill payments. Other banks had similar offers. Generally they are from the big banks.

They do this because they pay crappy interest. I can put my savings in a money market and make 4-5% and do nothing and it’s risk free. So for some with a low balance it’s not a bad incentive but no point in moving the money back and forth this way.

It's not everyday we see events like this. 100 Euros is a very decent sum of money to receive as a giveaway, even in UK. My first assumption would be that the bank is doing this as a marketing propaganda to attract more customers to their services. And it must be really an efficient one, because everyone would like to join a bank which gives their customers 100 Euros without any requirements in counterpart.

Once these news reach to more people in UK, I believe they are going to see their customers' base growing consistently...

Wow. It's been a long time since I've seen this kind of thing. In fact, the bank I work for charges an annual fee for using my credit card and can change this fee every year. While reading a topic like this, I tried to understand the level difference. Of course, this does not apply to everyone, but banks that see their customers only as people who make money should be replaced by such banks.

How I wish that my bank will also gives me that incentive.

It's rare to see that a bank is like this. Most of the banks wouldn't care about their customers unless you're a big time depositor, loaner and good payer to them.

It's not guaranteed that even other banks follow the same thing and procedure but, this is a desirable strategy for many banks that we use.

It is a very particular situation which could not only be reflected in the banking system, a few years ago I received or we (employees) got a bonus for over-productivity that one of the branches had had in another country, if I remember correctly it was the main branch located in United States.

I worked for this transnational in my country and this never happened again during the time I was there it, but there was the benefit that when any company in the consortium obtained an over in productivity, these profits were shared among all the employees globally, regardless of whether your branch was part of this achievement.

So, these policies exist but they are not applied correctly. Well, maybe they are applied but they are distributed among a few.

If the government restricts banks from giving loans to some institutions it might hurt the economy because it is not all businesses that fail to service their loans. The problem with most banks is that they go against government regulations and engage in countless financial malpractices. Recently a bank manager gave out an uncollateralized loan to his brother-in-law making which made the bank collapse. Because most of these top bankers are politically connected they are not persecuted. In my country most of these big companies and wealthy people that made banks collapse due to toxic loans are not openly mentioned. I think this secrecy portrays the fact that there is a collaboration between the government and these powerful debtors.

This is the first time I am learning about a bank like Nationwide that operates as if its customers are shareholders. It is also interesting to know that they abide fully by the banking laws. If all banks operate this way, there will be fewer bank failures.

It's not about being able to work as a complete commercial bank, it's about your vision and mission, these two things could help in realizing so much wealth even than some commercial banks. It's also good to point out that in some economic uncertainties of a country, banking and banking-related sectors are not always poor, especially this time when the interest rate is dangerously high in many countries.

Also, the bank issue in the US has caused a lot of misconception globally, it's not like that. Any country could have an issue in their sector, while other countries are booming in that sector. Taking my country as an example, banks are recording huger annual gains compared to the time without inflation issues. So, we should not use the US banking woes to judge globally, this is as the economy of the UK is even improving.

By the way, congratulations to you on the £100.

I've just been notified by my bank that they are paying me £100 under their fairer share policy. I'm with a UK "bank" called Nationwide. Well it isn't really a bank in the full sense of the word, but it provides a range of current accounts, savings account, and credit cards, and it offers mortgages. It is really categorised as a mutual building society, and the customers have an interest in the banks priofitability. It seems that they made so much money last year, that they are giving eligible customers a £100 payment. I don't have to do anything to receive this. I suspect that they were so profitable because there are government restrictions on the type of activities that they can undertake. For example, they can't lend money to foreign countries, or to businesses, and they can't indulge in the speculative financial instruments that havce bankrupted many of the true banks.

I believe that the abundance of toxic loans that are in the books of so many banks are part of a policy to force out smaller banks, and centralise banking into a few major international players. The toxic loans have also been used to transfer wealth away from much of the world population, and into the coffers of the wealthy banking elite.