Why is RBS giving grants? Surely its in their interests to loan this money to companies, not give it away
The key bit being…
The government and the European Commission ordered RBS to provide the money, comprised of two separate funds respectively intended to help smaller rivals build their offerings and encourage customers to switch providers.
It is meant to compensate for the taxpayer-owned bank’s 45.5 billion pound bailout during the financial crisis, seen as an unfair boost to already one of the biggest banks.
Wasn’t that bailout to stop them from going bankrupt? As in “they may be one of the biggest banks, but they were literally on deaths door and that was to just save their balance sheet”
Yes I believe so.
But you don’t just get a free handout and carry on your merry way.
This is the consequence.
They had to either agree a way to stop the monopoly they hold or face regulation. So they agreed with the UK government and the EU to help other banks gain some of its customers, it agreed to do this by awarding grants to banks that meet specific guidelines that was agreed by all the bodies concerned.
Regulation would see RBS lose, this way, yes they are giving out a lot of money, but if the banks they give it to, don’t gain many customers from RBS, it won’t be something RBS can be regulated over. It’s actually a winning scenario for RBS. Yes a bit of money they have to give out, but they can look at ways to gain new customers while ‘competing’ in an open market.
RBS was required to spin-off a ‘challenger bank’ in the same way that Lloyds were forced to curl out TSB.
RBS was intending to launch its challenger bank using the old Williams and Glyn name it gobbled up years ago.
I think this fund was set up to avoid them having to do so!
Yes, but not really, RBS spent something like 800 million then decided that Williams and Glyn wouldn’t work, I have a feeling they expected the government not to make them still do something after spending so much, it back fired on them, so the fund was launched.
Except they couldn’t get anyone to buy Williams & Glynn (the spin off) so they reached an agreement to give away a buttload of money instead
A post was merged into an existing topic: Starling Web Portal Confirmed
Though perhaps you launch it first and then try to sell it.
It never got launched.
They could always have floated it if there were no takeover offers.
This was exactly what I thought. Look at TSB. No, really, and don’t snigger. It lasted a year out of Lloyd’s before it was snapped up, so I can’t see that the situation with W&G needed to be different. Plus I seem to recall RBS had to put a decent chunk of cash into W&G too to keep it going, so it wouldn’t be like taking on a failing bank. Offer something customers want and I can’t see it would be a disaster. To me it was likely more that what they were offering wasn’t appealing enough. The trouble with RBS all along is that to this day they still feel like they have an air of arrogance about them, installed from the Goodwin days of building an empire. The W&G thing feels to me like someone saying in court “fine, I’ll pay all the fines you want but I’ll never apologise or make amends”, they’d rather just cough up some cash than have the lasting reminder of W&G taking their customers, filling what were their branches, having to keep putting money into someone else’s business. Classic ‘cut off your nose to spite your face’ stuff.
‘Starling, the leading digital bank’ - And I got jumped on the Monzo forum for saying Starling was the one getting taken seriously on a wider scale! .
To be fair… Starling did write it
That makes sense though, every (somewhat recognised) company tries to project themselves as the leader within their field when it comes to PR.
The difference is Starling is definitely who investors would put their money on being long-term profitable and market leading.
Service diversification, practically invented the “Banking as a Service” kind of industry. On top of that they’re taking business offerings incredibly seriously. Adding attractive things into their marketplace (integrations with cashback things, rather than proper offerings) that add to the account. They’ve also got a great overdraft as far as I’m concerned, as if you have savings in pots it doesn’t charge interest.
So tl;dr, their product is leading if their user count isn’t.
We don’t know that though, do we?
Agreed - that’s something I really don’t get why Monzo isn’t doing so. They have all that infrastructure, their own card processor (something which even Starling doesn’t have), they could make lots of money by letting other banks/fintechs/etc use it.
Not really, there are the likes of solarisBank who do similar things.
Yep, that’s something that can’t be argued about.
In some respects yes, in some not. It will just depend on whom you ask. Although from a core banking standpoint, I’d agree 100% Starling is the one to beat.
I reckon WireCard will try to get a banking licence at some point in the near future, to be honest. If they could expand that to other countries and get local details they’d be doing well, too
Prepay Solutions and Prepay Technologies already have licence applications in or at the planning stage, Wirecard does not.
Advanced Payment Solutions also have a banking licence application in process, they own the Cashplus brand which is by far the most well known prepaid card in the UK. And also offers a multi currency card option. They are the ones to watch, not Wirecard who are relatively small in the prepaid world.
I disagree, its probably Post Office that’s the most well known there’s advertisements for it at every Post Office.
I reckon the Thomas Cook one is also pretty well known, for families that are middle class enough to travel to foreign countries
You are wrong, but pointless arguing about facts. One has hundreds of thousands of regular users, one has disposable cards, totally different.