The Bank of Farage

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

They’re a subsidiary of NatWest plc and subject to the same laws and industry regulations as every other bank.

Which is 38% owned by the taxpayer.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

I’m pretty sure that allowing/barring individuals from specific financial products based on their ability to service them at a specified level is actually a feature of the entire banking system rather than an act of discrimination. It’s the very reason why the regulations require banks to offer ‘basic banking’ accounts, so that those who don’t match anyone’s criteria aren’t excluded from the system.

(I suspect, without having looked into it, that those basic products are considered to have been adequately delivered as long as they’re available somewhere within the bank’s business, without having to be replicated under each subsidiary brand the business operates).

You seem to be conflate a minimum service level for account operation with an arbitrary amount under which you are deemed unworthy. Two different positions I would argue.

Originally Posted by ianch99

You seem to be conflate a minimum service level for account operation with an arbitrary amount under which you are deemed unworthy. Two different positions I would argue.

They are indeed different, however none of us possesses that facts to know which has occurred here. There are business reasons for keeping prices up - when we ran a B&B for example, we would never discount below a certain rate even when we were quiet, because we found when we sold it too cheap the problems we faced increased. Guests were more demanding and less likely to respect our home. It made more work for us than a couple of extra room nights was worth.

I make no observation as to why that correlation existed except to speculate that there’s a point at which a value-added service, which you tend to cherish as an experience, becomes a commodity which you use at your convenience. Having worked for an international five-star hotel company in the past, I can assure you that the actual cost of servicing a room in one of those hotels is far, far below the minimum price they would ever actually sell that room for.

In Coutts case I’m pretty sure you can make a sound business case for having fewer, richer, lower maintenance clients whose custom acts as a sales tool to attract even more of the same accounts. Lots of investable money flows in while the cost of servicing each client is relatively lower.

Of course, it could be plain old fashioned snobbery at play here - I tend to suspect it is, in a way. Though it is a bit of a reach to take what might have been Farage’s personal experience and use it to pass judgment on an entire business model.

Originally Posted by Chris

Perhaps not, but the story is definitely inching in that direction. It certainly isn’t because he fell below the income/investment threshold, which is what Coutts have previously let slip, and is probably the only reason the public at large would be sympathetic about, as Coutts is known as the Royal family’s bank.

Side note, years ago when I was treasurer of the Christian Union at my uni I received a very generous donation from a student in the form of a Coutts cheque. I was suitably impressed by the bank’s name though at the time I had insufficient life experience to join the dots and realise just how utterly minted this bloke must have been. . From that day to this, that’s my one single brush with the world of Coutts.

My God-son’s parents (and they are also God-parents to our offspring) have a Coutts bank account - tbf, we have known them since they were in Uni, and their parents were both firmly middle class (teachers and Post Office managers); their first house was an ex-council semi.

He was offered the Coutts account when he became a Tax Partner at one of the Big Four accountancy firms in his mid-30s - it came with the position.

[Ms NTL]

Originally Posted by Chris

Perhaps not, but the story is definitely inching in that direction. It certainly isn’t because he fell below the income/investment threshold, which is what Coutts have previously let slip, and is probably the only reason the public at large would be sympathetic about, as Coutts is known as the Royal family’s bank.

Side note, years ago when I was treasurer of the Christian Union at my uni I received a very generous donation from a student in the form of a Coutts cheque. I was suitably impressed by the bank’s name though at the time I had insufficient life experience to join the dots and realise just how utterly minted this bloke must have been. . From that day to this, that’s my one single brush with the world of Coutts.

I had a Coutts account & check book at 24. My employer had a Coutts account (Strand, London) and its employees had Coutts accounts, until Coutts kicked us all out 2 years later. And my salary was below 50K.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

They are indeed different, however none of us possesses that facts to know which has occurred here. There are business reasons for keeping prices up - when we ran a B&B for example, we would never discount below a certain rate even when we were quiet, because we found when we sold it too cheap the problems we faced increased. Guests were more demanding and less likely to respect our home. It made more work for us than a couple of extra room nights was worth.

I make no observation as to why that correlation existed except to speculate that there’s a point at which a value-added service, which you tend to cherish as an experience, becomes a commodity which you use at your convenience. Having worked for an international five-star hotel company in the past, I can assure you that the actual cost of servicing a room in one of those hotels is far, far below the minimum price they would ever actually sell that room for.

In Coutts case I’m pretty sure you can make a sound business case for having fewer, richer, lower maintenance clients whose custom acts as a sales tool to attract even more of the same accounts. Lots of investable money flows in while the cost of servicing each client is relatively lower.

Of course, it could be plain old fashioned snobbery at play here - I tend to suspect it is, in a way. Though it is a bit of a reach to take what might have been Farage’s personal experience and use it to pass judgment on an entire business model.

You are right, snobbery is the key in this. Coutts have a very specific business model and I suspect the likes of Farage are counter to the customer profile they are wanting to foster. He is the antithesis of a discreet, high net-worth individual and they have responded appropriately.

---------- Post added at 15:23 ---------- Previous post was at 15:12 ----------

Apparently from Coutts memo:

"Views are distasteful & out of touch with society. At best he is seen as xenophobic & pandering to racists, at worst he is xenophobic & racist. A spineless, chaotic chancer he is considered by many to be a disingenuous grifter."

Seems fair to me ...

I have absolutely no sympathy for the man.I don't even have a teeny,weeny violin for him.As far as I can see he's achieved absolutely nothing in life unless being an absolute bellend is an achievement on it's own.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Maggy

I have absolutely no sympathy for the man.I don't even have a teeny,weeny violin for him.As far as I can see he's achieved absolutely nothing in life unless being an absolute bellend is an achievement on it's own.

You'd be quite good at epitaphs Maggy

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Maggy

I have absolutely no sympathy for the man.I don't even have a teeny,weeny violin for him.As far as I can see he's achieved absolutely nothing in life unless being an absolute bellend is an achievement on it's own.

... that would be because of his political beliefs?

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

... that would be because of his political beliefs?

What beliefs? He only believes in self promotion, bit like his orange buddy.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mr K

What beliefs? He only believes in self promotion, bit like his orange buddy.

Even if that was true, still no grounds. Plus I have to keep pointing out that OTHER banks have ALSO closed the accounts of OTHER people who had the "wrong" opinions.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Even if that was true, still no grounds. Plus I have to keep pointing out that OTHER banks have ALSO closed the accounts of OTHER people who had the "wrong" opinions.

You are ignoring that he’s a politically exposed person, this brings administrative and regulatory burdens that banks might be selective about.

As for the others there’s limited, anecdotal evidence. There’s the bigot that wrote to the bank to complain about rainbow flags. Now I’m old school, if I didn’t like the way a company was operating I’d be leaving them, I’d not be writing expecting them to stop virtue signalling and wait for them to boot me out.

NatWest plc have repeated today their offer of banking services to Farage through their retail banks. It’s difficult to see how he could be considered “blacklisted” for his political views.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

You are ignoring that he’s a politically exposed person, this brings administrative and regulatory burdens that banks might be selective about.

As for the others there’s limited, anecdotal evidence. There’s the bigot that wrote to the bank to complain about rainbow flags. Now I’m old school, if I didn’t like the way a company was operating I’d be leaving them, I’d not be writing expecting them to stop virtue signalling and wait for them to boot me out.

NatWest plc have repeated today their offer of banking services to Farage through their retail banks. It’s difficult to see how he could be considered “blacklisted” for his political views.

The dossier noted that there was 'no evidence of regulator or legal censure' of Mr Farage, that he was 'professional, polite and respectful' to staff and that he had recently been downgraded from a 'higher risk politically exposed person [PEP]' to lower risk, and was on the way to being classed as no risk at all.

The rainbow flags served no purpose, other that to promote the agenda of the real bigots.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The rainbow flags served no purpose, other that to promote the agenda of the real bigots.

I think they're quite pretty. We're a diverse culture. Be proud of it old chap

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

You are ignoring that he’s a politically exposed person, this brings administrative and regulatory burdens that banks might be selective about.

As for the others there’s limited, anecdotal evidence. There’s the bigot that wrote to the bank to complain about rainbow flags. Now I’m old school, if I didn’t like the way a company was operating I’d be leaving them, I’d not be writing expecting them to stop virtue signalling and wait for them to boot me out.

NatWest plc have repeated today their offer of banking services to Farage through their retail banks. It’s difficult to see how he could be considered “blacklisted” for his political views.

Except that they have admitted doing just that.

The bus company that runs my bus service is provided by a Labour-run council. So, in your view of the world, me being a Conservative, I should be banned from using the service.

I will never understand your logic, jfman!