Debating Europe, in partnership with ING, is today launching a series of posts on the future of banking in Europe. We’re beginning our series by looking at things from the perspective of the average European: what do Europeans actually want from their banks (and is there such thing as an “average” European customer)? Have banks in Europe been able to keep up with technology? How have they adapted to the transborder nature of European integration (and, on the international level, how have they coped with globalisation in general)?
We started by taking some of your comments to Hans van der Noordaa, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of ING Retail Banking in the Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg). We recently published a post asking: “What can banks do to regain trust?”
How would Mr van der Noordaa answer this question?
In our post, several of our commenters argued that better transparency would help repair trust between banks and customers. We had a comment sent in from Lino, for example, arguing that banks should have to “report everything to their clients and not just to their shareholders.“
We put the same question to Andrea Enria, Chairman of the European Banking Authority, the EU agency responsible for coordinating national bank supervision rules across Europe.
My answer to Lino is: Yes, transparency has to be part of the strategy to recover trust in banks. We have, as the EBA, put a lot of effort into this; ensuring consistency and transparency in reporting. It is an important avenue to go forward.
At the same time, from the perspective of the customer, they are sometimes flooded with information that they have difficulty in interpreting and making use of. So, transparency is important, but it is not enough. You need to make sure banks have strong processes and controls so that the people advising customers advise them properly and sell them products only when they’re absolutely sure they are appropriate.
In the same debate, we had a comment sent in from Mirela, arguing that, as well as greater transparency, “understandable language would help for sure, clear and simple rules also.”
Is there too much complicated jargon involved in the selling of financial services to customers? We put this comment to Monique Goyens, Director General of the European Consumers’ Association, BUEC.
Next, we had a comment sent in from Georgi complaining that banks in his country regularly deny basic services to customers, including denying loans to people on low incomes and denying student loans to mature students. Is there a widespread problem with access to basic bank services in Europe? If so, is the problem focused on some countries more than others?
We also put the same question to Jim Murray, President of the European Foundation for Financial Inclusion (EUFFI)
There is a significant problem of people who want to have bank accounts but are denied access. It’s a problem which will grow in intensity, because to participate in modern life you increasingly need to have a bank account. In terms of those who have difficulty of access, there are differences in geography. Penetration of bank accounts can range from 100% in Denmark, to 20 or 30% in Bulgaria or Romania.
The problem is that access to banking is essential, but banks fear that it may not always be profitable to extend basic services to a given individual due to a range of factors: from disability, to age, to bad credit ratings or low earning potential.
Finally, we recently had a debate on internet safety. During the debate, we looked at some statistics from eurostat that showed up to 20% of internet users in the EU refuse to use internet banking or shopping because of concerns about online security.
We spoke to Malcolm Harbour, British Conservative MEP and Chairman of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. Is it a problem that one in five people refuse to use internet banking or online shopping because of safety concerns? Or is it something that will resolve itself as people get more used to new technology?
No, I think it is a problem that has to be addressed. We’ve just completed a report on the future of the Digital Single Market, and that report argues there is much more that can be done to improve customer confidence online: from improving the ability to make payments cheaply and securely, to improving confidence in the ability to return faulty goods, or employing trust marks to signify that people are dealing with respectible traders, or encouraging alternative dispute resolution online. All these things we’re working on, and these things could help the Digital Single Market become one of the most powerful drivers for growth in the EU.
Finally, we put the same question to Lara Comi MEP, rapporteur on data protection for the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee.
What do YOU think? What do YOU want from your bank? Would greater transparency help improve trust in banks? Is there a problem with access to basic bank accounts and services? And how can we improve trust in online banking? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policy-makers and experts for their reactions.
48 comments Post a commentcomment
Normal salaries. that is what I expect, when i see what misery they have caused worldwide with their unlimited greed and bonuses. That would imply that a cap is implied on salaries, and that they also take full financial responsibility for their actions, especially when deemed illegal and against the interest of their clientle, society and humanity as a whole. This will never happen, as the greed demonstrated by almost all banks is proof of the deep rooted malpractices in order to try to maximise profit for shareholders and secure bonuses. Sickening as those paying for the bailouts are the working class, not the rich.
i agree
Whenever the funds steal the euros and blackmail simple people … i want the central bank to just print new money.
simple
Great question!
1. That bank managins system is not expose the bank employers ( I am not bank employer ) to the stress, uncertainty, fear for their job, that in the bank are employed people with compassion, feeling for communication, not haughty, numb but alive ( spiritually ). The money that exits from their hands suppose to bring positive energy. The banks suppose not to reduce the costs on the behalf of the employed uncertainty.
2. Banks are locally oriented, promote local people education, ideas, local projects, green communities, sharing,
3. Trust and encouragements during process of taking the loans, morthgagees, radiating certainty and optimism in future of the local economies and financial trends.
4. The banks that are able to dare, to dare against the trends of the globe system that is in the transformation process between corruption and new paradigmas. Dare to belive in own local people, local communities, provides them to educate, study, work, ideas, communicate, being in health and endured so that projects and loans which banks are financing are able to be finished and payed back and outcome to be shared with new generation.
5. Banl to be connected to the classic loyal customers and in special funds to be open for newcomers. Loyal customers establishing solid politic and with their conservative and careful financial behaviour be source for financing the projects that demands more attention from less conservative ( study, education, new technolofgies, local town habiting projects – greening, detotox of the land, urban surfaces, friendly logistic )
basic salary to all banksters. The minimum salary actually.
@Lazaros
Well said, basic salary sounds fair. Also a limit to excessive charges and high interest rates etc.
well done
I’d very much like bank system which provides the depositors share of the whole bank. This will make the bankers actually interested and scared for their money. It’s pretty easy to operate with people’s money for bigger profits, but when you operate with your money it’s kind a responsible. This system would provide transparency to the interested sides and the private share holders.
I ask them to change their current wild economic behavior. Citizens around the world are demanding banks as organizations that promote collaborative consumption and economy common good, instead of the “making profit” institutions they have become so far. Europeans don’t want to see nice and wealthy balances which banks use to demonstrate their economic power. On the contrary, citizens expect them to invest the benefits they make to keep going society thrive. Economy has to be alligned with people and tangible ideas and projects not with making banks richer as occurs so far.
Ignasi
ease of access…..parking…..and NOT being in your banking union.
Do you pay the baker to cut your loaf in slices? Why would we pay the bank when we ask for a service?
Never forget people, that banks are private companies that have one and one purpose alone : PROFIT!!!
None should be blamed for trying to benefit from their activity, I just wish they weren’t in control of our lives. Physically in control. I do not wish to pay money I work for in the interest of some private endeavor gone bankrupt.
Thank you take into account my signal, but it does not change the situation. I can not tell you how people lose their properties for unfair contracts and banking laws autocephalous units … This will not change the situation.
As I greet you at the beginning of the consolidation of the financial and banking market in the European Union, I’m sure, a good environment for thieves funds and finances and their mafia associations and followers will be cut Noble and Root!
Centreline, the European Union is moving well .., “first gear, but the road is smooth and good!”
Worse is that it is expected to solve all problems / despite its / but make permanent gifts, which is a shame ..!
I’m no economist nor a banker, but just having read your previous comments Juan Vzquez Garca, here is a good piece of documentation for your knowledge about the economic crisis. Governments are to blame no doubt about it, but NEVER EVER try to make banks true Saints because they are not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuNry6X9V8Q
reduce spreads to improve people’s income
A serious fine might enable a high deterrence for the corruption.For example UBS can not dare for the corruption of libor easily again. Because 1.4 billion Swiss franc fine is a so big money even the bankers.
Capitalism leans to jealous and libido. The corruption can not be able realise by minority where inside of any production branch for a long time. Therefore you can not run away as individual, due to implemented by the majority usually. The solution is regulations and fine and at last to abolish business licence.
I am extremely glad you brought this up.
Truth is, your money will nvr (I know, i have experiences :) we do ;) in human rights. :p block your funds and work with them but with no profit to the csustomer rather – more – at the expense of ’em )be safe in a Swiss bank. Account let alone a Swiss bank.
best wld be smth like liechtenstein, same currency used but not the mentality. And banking secrecy.;) Hasan .. jealousy yea, but you blame ..that is the problem of individuals, not ideology.
Already from a historical viewpoint socialism is flawed. Even
in an equal society (and we live far from a perfect world) there will
always be those who are stronger, faster, can toil better, carry more or
work harder, even if you give them the same skills.
Same applies for education.
libido? :p
I mean consider this.Those with more shld give bk to society. if they don’t ..bad boy.;) however, if you engineer much :p to do so thru ie. banking taxes (new one now but, let’s say just taxation. .. progressive taxation /Marxist idea.) you are moving the blame from them ..onto you.
What right do you have taking from those who worked hard (or were smart enough to let their money do so for them) for their earnings?
I hold ING in extremely high rgrd.
yes ;) aside human rights i equally have experience in finances. :p (part of my job .. I most hate fundraising :).
Ct,then :p it’d be no different from cash-only (equity) transactions as opposed to leveraging it (essentially means you purchase with money you dnt have.).Absolutely approve .
lol David
Something you might find interesting ..
http://www.reuters.com/subjects/income-inequality
Albert, ? buy a lotary ticket sometimes. Who knows, perhaps :) if the banking secrecy had have became, the corruption could not have implemented easily but probably ambition reduces and the development would be reduced. You are right in that the jealous is not an individualistical problem, it is a basic ideology. But if a true socialist community had have became, the subject of jealous would be became in other branches of economy, not money or banking.
Generally a more transparent monetary policy on administration costs. I do not know what costs the rest of Europe, but from what I saw on some news channels, the bank whose clients are was in my country big enough profit versus profit at European level.
Os consumidores querem transparencia dos banqueiros e não chantagem os banqeiros tem que restaurar a confiança dos consumidores e a UE devem criar diplomas que protegem os consumidores
An end to excessive rewards, an end to rewards for failure, a split up of casino banking and ordinary banking, tighter regulation, a banking union that includes London and an ECB as the lender of last resort.
Would like to here bankers and governments talk about reserve fraction system on our loans. Would love some honest feedback on that issue!!!
Yes there are problems with banks that are European level issues. If a member is in one state and moves temporarily then it is problematic to get the services in another member state. I will give some examples from my own situation.:
1. I had a British Bank Account (and am a British Subject). I moved to Finland. My bank in the UK required me to have a UK address to have a bank account in the UK. But I wanted an account that I could keep my savings in pounds in and to pay off student loans from. I had occasional work in the UK and also family gave me birthday and Christmas money. As the UK does not have the EURO it is expensive to change small amounts of money.
In any case with relatives in the UK I did not want to change money to Euro and then back again. I wanted to keep small amounts in pounds sterling in a British bank.
THE EU could improve matters by allowing members of one EU state to have an address in another member state as their contact address for banking services. ESPECIALLY FOR SMALL AMOUNTS OF MONEY.
2. Although I have been living in Finland I have decided to study. As I have been there several years I am entitled to a government backed loan. The Finnish Government does not loan me the money, instead private banks do. However, although I can use the loan for study outside of Finland (in my case in another member state) , no bank outside of Finland would loan me the money as they do not trust the Finnish Government to back the loans and I have no credit rating outside of Finland.
Further more I am required by the Finnish bank to have a Finnish address. As a student with a need to borrow money as a loan in order to study I do not have sufficient to buy nor rent a property in Finland that I am not living in. A change in the requirements to allow foreign studying students to give a foreign address for their studies would be good.
3. When I went to live in another member state I found that I could not open a bank account as I did not have a paid job and also was not studying. As I had gone to that member state to found a family and had some savings I wanted to put the money in the bank. Also when transferring money from the UK I was forced to use other people’s accounts, that were not in my name and it was difficult to access the money once transferred. The ability to have a basic service would be good, one that allows me to deposit money and withdraw it – I do not mean any credit line, just the actual cash I already have.
4. Having arrived in the member state I am studying in, I brought my girlfriend and daughter. My girlfriend quite properly wanted her own bank account. However I can come to the member state as I am a student at an institution, but she is not. She can come here as my partner, but the civil partnership we are in is not recognized by the member state we moved to (they only recognize homosexual civil partnerships). So because she is not recognized as my partner she cannot open a bank account (she can only have a joint account with me). It would be good if this discrimination against heterosexual people was ended. And that all EU Citizens had a right to a basic bank account in any country in which they are resident.
OK that is a few examples – there are others, like credit ratings not being transferable, online purchasing not working properly and it is not possible to find out why it has been declined and that members of one EU state that move to another EU state can only have a direct debit card and then they cannot purchase flights, rail tickets etc. AND I also found that Finland uses its banking codes in order to access many e-government services. Yet many of the banks would not give non Finns online banking privileges, which means that these members are discriminated against and have to spend much more time and money accessing benefits etc. In some cases they cannot comment on consultations as the bank codes are required to submit the consultation.
Stop trying to solve human problems by passing a law!
Legally binding code of conduct, written by bank, non bank and business groups. Linking risk taking with charity contributions.
Atualmente os bancos nada fazem por ns,ns que fazemos por eles….
To set the record straight:
1. till 2008, the EU banks were private institutions making profit from money-trade;
2. till 2002, the Eurozone member-states had their National Central Bank, issuing the national currency used to boost their national economy via public expenditure;
3. since 2002, the Eurozone member-states abolished their national sovereignty on monetary policy, transfering the right of issuing the euro-currency to the ECB;
4. since 2002, the Eurozone member-states got into the trap of a well planned usurers’ cage: the national (democratically elected) governments were forced to borrow the new currency not directly from the ECB but from the “markets”. This fundamental change put the private banks above the states [since private banks of the Eurozone member-states borrowed the money from arch-usurer ECB paying 1%-1,5% interest and lend it to the Eurozone member states at rates that reached 30% (in the case of Greece)]. However, these private (mainly German and French) banks found themselves at the point of bankruptcy in 2008.
Who rescued the banks?
At first, the tax-payers (public money) of its respective country, but this pressed hard the national deficits and public debt (in Greece, this cost 28bn euros to the Greek tax payers in 2008).
Then, the international usurers gang (gamblers at international markets) attacked the Eurozone via the weaker ring (Greece). As a result, holders of Greek bonds (mainly German and French banks) got in red and needed more public money to be rescued; however, it was extremely difficult to convince the German and French citizens to pour more public (tax-payers) money into the private banks that were already rescued once in 2008.
Then, the leadership of the 4th Reich found an easy “solution” to the problem:
1. it is not our bankers to put the blame on; it’s all a Greek fault!
2. putting the blame on Greeks and convincing their national audience that it is unavoidable to “rescue” them, the leadership of the 4th Reich with the complicity of the West European Usurers Corporation, insulted a member-state, its society and imposed (with the comlience of the infamous for its social cruelty in the 3rd World, IMF) a catastrophic for the Hellenic Society, “stabilization program” that led to depression (-25% GDP in 3years, 2010-2012; unemployment above 30% -officialy 26,7% Dec-12) and social tension in the periphery (Greece was the first victim of the plan “rescuing our nazional banks – throwing to ΚΑΙΑΔΑΣ the peripheral EU-countries”, masterminded by nazionalist politician Wolfgang Schäuble)
Now, it is time for the West European Usurers Corporation to rethink the results of this nazionalist, German-centric policy:
1. Germany rescued its economy to the expense mainly of the EU periphery and continues looting the periphery via the imposition of European control over their public finances (thus depriving e.g. the citizens of the Hellenic Republic of basic health care and education privileges) and usurers’ interests to the new loans offered to them (loans that can not be paid back since the EU control trhoughs the national economies to deep recession up to depression)
2. the reaction of the peripheral EU societies (not easily seen at the EU centre) to this invasion and demolition of democracy, will be tremendous depriving the West European Usurers Corporation from all its legitimacy in the periphery.
3. the question that arises is simple: was it worthy rescuing the private (mainly German and French) banks by using public money to the expense of values such as democracy, social welfare and EU legitimacy?
An answer, please! (if you can utter a rational one)
Some good points. But…
What about Greeks refusing to pay their taxes? Tax evasion is running rampant left and right (just as a personal opinion, I think Greeks have Ukrainians beat in tax evasion…)
A portion of Greeks want various social benefits, and if they’re not provided they won’t vote for the politicians, but then they and the rest of the population are trying to avoid paying anything.
And now, with the crisis where it’s the “government’s fault”, their trust in the government must have dropped far below zero, and if anything, their desire to pay taxes has dropped further. They naturally see all the fault lying in the government. Which in a way is normal, everybody always tries to shift blame from their own persons.
7 months ago, on the Economist, I read an article by a Greek economist/sociologist who concluded that the long-term problem is that various nations in the EU, such as Greece, Italy, Spain, and I’m guessing my own country of Romania (though he didn’t mention it), have certain cultural characteristics in common. He said that, to the people, “government” and especially foreign government (aka, the EU) is an evil entity akin to medieval kings – and so have an innate distrust of the government, and shirk away from fulfilling what other cultures see as a duty and responsibility – and one of those ways is to evade taxes.
Your name suggests you’re Greek and you have a PhD, I assume in economics. Please enlighten us as to how the tax evasion problem, which has been much much longer-running than the current crisis… fits into the current crisis. Or maybe, better said, how the crisis fits into the tax evasion problem…
And btw, I’m not contradicting your points, I agree that Western European banks are pretty much loan-sharks, they’re taking advantage of every situation, I won’t even get into how Romanian business development is being pretty much stopped in its tracks due to the financial intermediation market.
Is anybody having any difficulty setting up bank accounts in countries that they have had to move to get a job?
What I want from my bank is that it won’t deprive me or anyone else with toxic products like foreign currency loans. And after they did so, show mercy and temperance. Only my bank alone disbursed hundreds of billions HUF of this toxic product pushing tens of thousands of people into misery and poverty. I feel sick every time i see theese commercials! Please first say that you are sorry, to get our trust back. Commercials just won’t do the trick! Not even on facebook!
By the way accessing a bank account through internet is a childs play. Using iban # is also quite easy, so this debate makes no sense at all. Those who have security fears will have those even if there would be an EU regulation for that. It won’t help real social problems though.
Nationalisation
I expect banks to be back being banks. That is to help people around the world to build buisnesses, design innovative new products or services, … the job of banks is to lend money at reasonable rates to help people, nations to make the world a better place. The raison d’etre of banks is not to make a profit of “one x” (or even more) in lending “one “. Comparing the world to a battle field banks should be the red cross …
I think it’s important that banks take responsibility for their actions, so therefore, if using opaque information and then leading to a liability situation like Bankia (Spanish bank) did. Some people should be asked for responsibility.
And most importantly, banks should inform the members of the public, what they are investing OUR money on. I don’t want my money to be used to speculate on wheat price leading on 200,000 people not being able to feed themselves so I can get a better interest rate.
WE SHOULD NOT ONLY LOOK AT THE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES OF A PARTICULAR ENTITY, BUT ALSO WHERE ARE THEY “PUTTING” THE MONEY AND IF THEY ARE BEING PRODUCTIVE OR NOT.
Well that’s my opinion. I deeply hope some people share this opinion.
I would like that my bank:
– Keeps in mind that for one debtor there is always a responsible creditor;
– Understands the conflit of interest between investment and commercial banking;
– Informs me better on which products/companies they are investing my savings and: can I chose them?
– Assumes that there is no point in charging fees for transfers in the Eurozone, that should be considered domestic. By this, I mean, it would be nice if they stop mixing them with the annuals fees I pay for managing my account.
– Furthermore, abolish the two/three days time it takes to confirm the receipt of the cash in interbank transfers; meaning if I am debited from one account and it takes two days to confirm receipt on the other, where is my cash between these two days?
Thank you!
Awww… such a cute article… But coming back to Adult-Land, here’s the real problem with the banks:
The financial intermediation system is one of the most important elements to a sound economy. It can’t make but it can certainly break growth and prosperity.
It is one of those systems in the grand scheme of things that generates a lot of externalities, and everyone is affected by them, whether they realize it or not.
Unfortunately the banking system is composed of for-profit enterprises, and their main incentive is profit. As such, the system is very susceptible to misdemeanors born out of greed. As a Romanian who still knows very little about how big banks operate in my country, I am already appalled by the ridiculous profiteering they practice (and our economy is suffering because of it).
What the system needs is a non-profit bank whose sole purpose is not to make money, but to actually be a good financial intermediator. Those bankers will be less prone to fixing LIBOR rates, using credit default swaps to drop far far below the minimum reserve requirement, or give out consumer credit without looking at the credit scores, etc.
If run well, with total and utter transparency, a bank like that could run with much better interest rates, lower bank fees, no HIDDEN fees an costs (one major source of mistrust for banks). After losing a significant share of consumers and businesses to this non-profit bank, the other banks would have to better their services if they want to survive. Simple as that.
Or better yet, how about not allowing a business that society depends on to register profit margins in the double digits. I think it’s terribly unfair that a hard-working entrepreneur works for 6% profit in a business and has to pay 4% of it back to the bank, while the bank does nothing but PUSH PAPER and makes 20% profit margins off other people’s hard work.
In short, this is what our financial system looks like right now:
– the hard work of the people in the economy is being funneled to the ridiculously rich bankers who then do stupid and risky things with that money, losing a lot of it, then coming to the public they just dried out of cash asking for bailouts. Then when the people want to invest in a business and make money, they often can’t because the credit risk premium for a market is higher than the average profit margin for that type of business. The entrepreneur has to suffer because the bank was reckless in the past and gave too much money to people who didn’t look like they could pay it back or would just use it to buy a new iPhone 5.
Furthermore, a lot of credit is currently being used for consumption. Sure, in the short run it’s a form of demand activation, it kick-starts the economy. A consumer buys a 1000 euro laptop with credit, ends up paying, say, 2600 total euro over a period. But that extra 1600 isn’t all interest rate or even risk premium. Most of it is bank’s actual profit. So a large portion of a consumer’s product of labor goes not to consumption, but rather to the bank. Will the bank redistribute this via salaries? No, not really, trickle-down economics don’t exist, Reagan and republicans are idiots. They will hide their money in banks in Switzerland and the Caribbean (may I remind you that globally an estimated 23-31 trillion dollars are being evaded in taxes due to bank secrecy; how many of those are banking profits I wonder).
So the problems are:
– institutional – the overall structure of the system
– profit is the only incentive
– banks have total and utter control, both on paper and informally (too much power and influence over politicians, too many people in politics are bankers)
– cultural (consumers are too pressured to get everything NOW, too much credit is being used for consumption rather than investment or education, culturally we are extremely short-sighted)
Solutions? Simple in theory, politicians unwilling to do anything about it in practice…
– non-profit bank that sets the standards so that society reaps the benefits of the financial intermediation; if they are so awesome, for-profit banks compete in a free market!
– limit the profit margin, strict and tough fiancial auditing, and coupled with that…
– at a global level, get rid of bank secrecy; nobody should be above the law and above social responsibility, and their money shouldn’t be an exception!
– change the economy and culture to the point where consumers can afford to be savers and save, rather than living more and more on consumer credit, which just lowers the standard of living
When i started reading this article, i had great hopes but i was quickly disappointed. By the half of the article i had shared feelings, both of anger and frustration.
“Back to adult-land” as you put it is the perfect term to describe this childish debate, they completely ignore everything that is important. Consumer, products bla bla bla. Then i stumbled upon your comment, very refreshing Mr. Daniel Scurtu.
I may not know much about banking and finance but what i know for sure and what concerns me is the constant involvement of big banks into politics and social aspects. I am deeply concerned of PRIVATE banks taking over the money supply of sovereign countries. The US Federal Reserve should be a glimpse into our possible dark future. Furthermore, no investigations where launched to clear out the question marks regarding the financial crisis. Iceland did it, why can’t EU do it ? Instead they reach out down into people’s pockets, like they did in Cyprus. Great debate they have here …
Salutari si numai bine !
End all banks. Regulate them into oblivion. Replace them all with credit unions, savings and lending co-ops, and a reasonable system of government loans.
What is the future of the EU in this way, where each MS has its Central Bank and private banks. MS according to the Treaty of Basileia III dis that have to be recapitalized, is a bad treaty only provides security for those who have the banks and not who have their capital there. MS rescue and who pays are the same citizens who have their capital in the bank and others. Idiots, so the Union will break.
No bank should be big enough to force any state, or large region (4/5million people+) to do its bidding. Set a size limit for banks at EU and at NUTSII level. If they exceed it force them to split in that region. Set the limit to ensure that there are at least 12 banks in each region.
Allow only one tier in the company structure. Subsidiary companies of banks may not own shares in other companies.
I just want the EU to come up with a solution where banks can be changed easily without having to change bank details. That will surely improve service and increase competitiveness. This will also give small banks from the euro land to compete with the big banks
Since the banks are the 3rd / 4th power in most european states, i say, let’s “re-structure” ‘ em with rights but also obligations, rules and RESPONSABILITY!
Personally I don’t need anything from what banks has to offer, but I would dare to suggest a fair game. In the country I reside, banks use a very aggressive marketing and they”burned” a lot of people thru hidden fees, variable rates, and many surcharges due the lack of bankruptcy legislation. Most of regular folks have no idea that banks are setting traps and they are just easy pray for experienced bankers coming from western countries were they used to fight customer protection laws and experienced lawyers. They harass people because they are just deluxe opportunists in tandem with corrupt government officials. They don’t like to take any risks when they lend money. But who does it ?
I am working in a bank since 2008 and tlking about the clients trust I can say that situation has chanched since 2012 and people now trust banks much more than a couple of years ago. It was and is a very hard work to make people trust and believe – it depends on EVERY bank employee, especialy who are involved in the customer service process and works with clients, because every person working in bank should be interested not only in selling a bank product, but should understand clients needs, wants and abilities, know client’s profile and should be oriented on long-term relationship. Only in that way is possible to make people trust you. And that takes quite a long time. What do Europeans want from the banks? Banks’s clients in Latvia could be divided into two parts. The first part are clients, who are looking for trustful bank with excelent clint service, with personnel, which is interested in them. Such client adequately evaluate economic situation and the price of the products for them is not on the first place. Second part are people, who are looking for the lowest price and are dissatisfied with everything – with too high charges (as they think), too high credit per cent and too low deposit percent, these people were dissatisfied when banks didn’t offer a mortgage with “left key principle”, but now, when legislation had been changed, are dissatisfied with higher deposit for mortgage. So, it is not possible to define what exactly “an average european” wants, that’s why it is so important to understand every individual client, to be oriented on long-term relationships. Banks will improve their services, people will trust banks more, which is good for both – clients and banks.
I am waiting for an Uber type bank to come along. I have no need for a physical bank or even cash. Yes, it takes time for people to get used to such a big change – would be good for us all and can imagine not being able to hide money and not pay taxes?