Oh, how the mighty banks have fallen.

Since Goldman Sachs started around 80 years, the phrase ‘Long-term greedy’ which was used by Sidney Weinberg, who was managing partner during the 1930s through to the 1960s, has been a sort of guiding mantra.  This ‘Long-term greedy’ attitude helped the company grow from being a simple unknown brokerage to become the world’s most profitable and powerful financial institution.

While most people would not describe being greedy as a virtuous trait, according to a highly controversial comment last year by Goldman Sachs’ current chairman and chief executive, Lloyd Blankfein, he believed the bank was doing ‘God’s work’.

The recent announcement by the America’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that the bank and one of its vice presidents, Fabrice Tourre, was being charged in relation to claims that investors were mislead over its collateralised debt obligations, a complex financial product sold by the bank during the boom years of the Noughties, must have been seen by him as some form of blaphemy.

According to the Motley Fool, “The watchdog alleges that the bank mis-stated and omitted key facts about the CDO, and failed to reveal that a major hedge fund had a hand in selecting the underlying portfolio of securities– even though Paulson & Co. had bet its value would fall by shorting the CDO.”

With the mantra, “No one ever got fired for hiring Goldman Sachs”  still persisting to ring true for many in the financial markets, it seems that the current claims and various other allegations over the past few years may have partly tarnished the wings of gods financial messenger, or as Rolling Stone magazine once described it, a “vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money”.

The news of the SEC charging the bank with civil fraud has meant that the most profitable investment bank in the world saw its shares plunge by 12.5% to $160 over the weekend, taking off a whopping $12 billion from the market cap of the firm.

No related posts.

Bank charges could be set for another court battle after a ruling by a Glasgow Judge cleared the way for a proof hearing into determining whether bank charges are fair.

The Supreme Court verdict last November ruled the Office of Fair Trading could not assess bank charges under section 6 of the 1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts regulations, but suggested the banks might still have a case to answer under section 5 of the same act.

On Friday at Glasgow Sheriff Court, Sheriff Baird ruled against the Bank of Scotland in its attempts to prevent a customer amending her bank charges claim and fixed a full evidential hearing for the case.

Aided by solicitors from Govan Law Centre, the claimant succeeded in persuading the judge to allow a new challenge against the bank under regulation 5 of the UTCCR. What’s more, a request was also made asking the court to prohibit the bank from imposing future charges against the claimant under S140 of the Consumer Credit Act.

The proof hearing may result in the bank being forced to show that its charges were not excessive under the consumer credit act in a development which places the onus on the banks to prove charges are fair.

“Over the last few weeks, UK banks have been telling one million customers that there were now no grounds to reclaim bank charges, standing November’s Supreme Court’s decision. Of course, the Supreme Court itself had explained that charges could still be challenged under different legal grounds, and that is what Sheriff Baird has permitted our client to do today at Glasgow Sheriff Court,” said Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre, representing the successful pursuer.

“Bank of Scotland now faces a fresh challenge that charges were excessive and unfair under the Consumer Credit Act. That is a potentially devastating case for them to answer, because under this new law the onus of proof is on the bank to show that charges were fair. Given that our banks have admitted they subsidise ‘free-if-in-credit banking’ by squeezing more money out their poorest customers through bank charges, they will now have to defend the indefensible. And, they will have the added problem that we are asking the court to prohibit them from imposing future charges under the CCA”.

“In a nutshell, our new arguments are hugely more powerful than the ones deployed by the OFT in their unsuccessful test case. Evidentially, the new arguments require the bank to prove their charges were fair – which is tactically significant for consumers. The new arguments not only enable consumers to seek a refund of past charges, but entitle them to ask the court to prohibit future bank charges. That is hugely significant, and in many respects, we believe the new bank charges campaign is going to be a tougher propsect for the banks than the pre-July 2007 campaign. And of course that previous campaign saw refunds in excess of £1bn for consumers across the UK – so we are incredibly optimistic”.

Related personalfinanosaurus posts:

1. Bank charges verdict to be delivered next Wednesday
2. Great news for consumers on unfair bank charges
3. Tories label bank charges as unfair

Under new Financial Services Authority (FSA) rules, financial firms who collect an excessive amount of complaints against them are to be named and shamed reports MoneySavingExpert news.

Over a six month period companies who receive 500 or more complaints will, under the rules, have to publish the numbers of complaints twice a year so consumers can see which firms draw the most ire.

Under the rules, companies must state complaints numbers in a prominent position on their website including:

• How many complaints they have opened and closed
• The percentage closed within eight weeks
• The percentage of complaints upheld

The number of complaints will also be available on the FSA website. FSA rules differs from those of the Financial Ombudsman Service rules in that FSA numbers will include all complaints and not just those that have gone to the Ombudsman.

Sheila Nicoll, FSA conduct policy director, says: “For the first time, people will be able to see how many complaints particular firms receive and how they handle them.”

All affected firms must publish figures by 31 August 2010, with the FSA following in September.

No related posts.

This announcement comes after 350 years of cheque usage, however because of the use of credit, debit and contactless payment cards, alongside online shopping and banking, it seems that in recent years the cheque has fallen into a ‘terminal decline’.

The council stated that as long as the needs of the vulnerable and elderly are met, then, “The goal is to ensure that by 2018 there is no scenario where customers, individuals or businesses, still need to use a cheque.”

With an execution date decided for the cheque, and a rise in the use other forms of payment, it looks as though cash may be next to face the block. While the advent of a cashless society has been widely heralded for around 40 years it has not seemed possible until recently.  However through the successful widespread use of mobile phone sims for small contactless purchases in countries like South Korea, it may just be that cash may also finally be coming to an end.

Related personalfinanosaurus posts:

1. Nokia to enter world of finance with Nokia Money
2. Praying for the death of credit card cheques
3. Don’t let the bank use the postal strike as an excuse to take your money

Wednesday week (25th November) will be D-Day for the banks in the long-running bank charges saga after it was announced earlier today that the Supreme Court will deliver their ruling on the legal battle according to MoneySavingExpert.

Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal have ruled that charges can be assessed for fairness by the OFT, and if the Supreme Court upholds that view then it could reopen the floodgates for consumer claims for compensation against their banks.

The hearing is scheduled to be handed down at 9.45am where the law lords will deliver their verdict into whether or not charges of around £39 each for exceeding overdraft limits or returning a direct debit are fair. The Supreme Court has already hinted that it thinks they are unjust and are widely expected to throw out the banks’ appeal.

Over one million claims are currently stuck in limbo and clogging up the legal system, thanks to a FSA waiver and prior to the litigation banks had already reimbursed consumers with more than £1 billion before claiming was suspended.

However, even if the Supreme Court does find in favour of the OFT there is little to prevent the banks challenging their findings and so continuing to drag the whole affair on for much longer. According to MSE, it would be hoped that political intervention after the verdict would prevent any further appeals, especially given the fact that some of the banks in question, including Lloyds TSB and HBoS are taxpayer-owned.

“I’ve had letters from Messrs Brown, Cameron and Clegg all effectively committing to that and MoneySavingExpert.com, with its 8 million users a month, will try and ensure they stick to their promise.” Martin Lewis, consumer champion and founder of MoneySavingExpert.com commented.

Related personalfinanosaurus posts:

1. Tories want bank charges compensation repaid ‘quickly and fairly’
2. Bank charges come back into legal spotlight following court ruling
3. Tories label bank charges as unfair

Christmas shopping was disrupted for thousands of shoppers on Saturday following the nationwide failure of Halifax and Bank of Scotland ATM machines.

The holes-in-the-wall were rendered unusable from early Saturday morning to mid-afternoon after a power failure at an IT centre in Yorkshire occurred. The outage also affected access to customers’ accounts via online banking although in-branch systems were less disrupted and customers were allowed to withdraw money at the counter, although staff had to record transactions on paper.

Power was eventually restored around 2.30pm but the failure saw huge queues forming at ATMs operated by other banks with some customers having their cards rejected at these ATMs also, as well as in shops as systems could not access the card details.

An HBOS spokeswoman said: “We apologise to customers for the disruption and inconvenience this is causing.”

Last month, NatWest was hit by a similar problem which was also caused by an IT breakdown.

We know that banks are reluctant to give out money in these trying economic times, but is shutting down the whole system nationwide really the answer to ensuring they hold onto their cash?

No related posts.

It’s been a long time coming and will lead to major changes for those seemingly ‘white knights’ of the finance world – the price comparison sites.

In the finance world, there is a little known black art used by these sites which mean a lot of price comparison websites will rank certain financial providers sites at the top of their lists of recommended best buys based on the commission they’ll get from these providers, even when they are not the cheapest.

This gives a false impression to the user that the provider is either cheaper than everybody else or, for some esoteric reason known only to those with the combined secret finance knowledge of the Gnomes Of Zurich and the Bilderberg Group, that it a better product. This means you could potentially actually end up with a worse deal for taking the best buy advice than you could have got by choosing a different product or going direct to another provider.

Related personalfinanosaurus posts:

1. Volcano-Friendly Travel – Insurance and Pets

Could this be the clearest indication yet that banks have admitted defeat in the long running bank charges saga? In a surprise move, the taxpayer-owned RBS-Natwest group has announced it will be slashing charges related to overdrafts – breaking ranks with the rest of the banking industry.

With a decision on whether the Office of Fair Trading can regulate charges levied by banks on overdrafts and direct debits due to be delivered anytime, the move could be seen as the bank’s attempt to pre-empt any judgement and from 1st October, Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and NatWest customers will be charged only £5 for having a cheque bounced or direct debit returned unpaid; this is down from the current charge of £38. Meanwhile, the charge for paying an item on an overdrawn account falls from its current £30 to £15.

“This is obviously very welcome news and about time,” said Marc Gander of the Consumer Action Group. “Hopefully this is a recognition of how unfair their pricing system has been.”

If the Office of Fair Trading is successful in its ongoing legal battle with eight High Street banks – including RBS-NatWest – then banks and building societies would have to pay out billions of pounds in bank charge repayments to settle the 1.2 million cases currently being held in the legal system.

However, the decision by RBS-Natwest could be a clear signal that the banks are preparing for the worst and the move is sure to be welcomed by customers of both banks.

What’s more, such a move could well see other banks follow suit and cut their own charges in order to retain their customer base.

Related personalfinanosaurus posts:

1. Tories label bank charges as unfair
2. Bank charges come back into legal spotlight following court ruling
3. Tories want bank charges compensation repaid ‘quickly and fairly’

The case, which is currently undergoing discussion in the House of Lords could cost British banks billions of pounds should the Lords rule against them and Mr Cameron is believed to be considering a plan to introduce automatic payback of charges should the Tories win the general election. The Tory leader has already instructed the shadow Chancellor George Osborne to investigate the possibility of automatic compensation which would do away with the need for consumers having to raise a claim.

In an email sent in response to Martin Lewis of website MoneySavingExpert.com, Mr Cameron said:

“Once the legal issues have been resolved I agree with you that bank customers must be compensated quickly and fairly for any unfair charges that they have had to pay. So I’ve asked my Shadow Treasury Team to look at your suggestion that banks should pay money back automatically if the courts do rule that the charges are unfair.”

The full wording of Mr Cameron’s response can be found here.

The Tories’ promise could see the amount of compensation being paid back by banks far surpass the original figures claims Mr Lewis. Should automatic compensation occur, the banks could be forced to pay back as much as £10billion or even more; whereas if consumers were to continue to claim against their banks, the likely payout would be much less – perhaps £2-3billion.

The Lords’ verdict is expected sometime in Autumn.

Related personalfinanosaurus posts:

1. Tories label bank charges as unfair
2. Bank charges verdict to be delivered next Wednesday
3. Great news for consumers on unfair bank charges

Better known for their mobile phones, Finnish telecoms giant Nokia is branching out – into the world of financial services.

In March this year, Nokia sank $70million into mobile payment specialist Obopay and Nokia will now be working alongside the company to develop services which will enable consumers to send and receive money via mobile phone as well as pay merchants for goods and services and pay bills.

The service will be called Nokia Money and is believed to be targeting emerging markets where banking services may not be readily available.

In a news item on telecoms.com, Mary McDowell, Nokia’s chief development officer is quoted as saing: “We believe mobile financial services offer a market opportunity with long term growth potential … In many countries, mobile phone ownership significantly exceeds bank account usage, suggesting that many mobile phone users have very limited or no access to basic financial services. Global demand for access to financial services presents a strong opportunity to combine mobile devices with simple but powerful financial services.”

With mobile phones outnumbering bank accounts by almost 3-to-1 worldwide, there is a potential market for the provision and use of basic financial services via telecoms, and Nokia are also looking to create a network of approved Nokia Money agents where users of the service can deposit and withdraw cash from their accounts.

Nokia are expected to debut the service at next week’s Nokia World with deployment of the service scheduled to take place in 2010.

Related personalfinanosaurus posts:

1. The World Is Not Enough
2. Hello to the scary world of finance – mission statement
3. Pay as you go car finance