RBS branch sale to Santander collapses

Old Man · 12 Oct 2012 at 20:59

Royal Bank of Scotland’s proposed £1.7bn sale of 316 bank branches to Santander fell apart tonight, leaving the state-backed lender with just over a year to sell the high street network.

Entire article here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...9/RBS-branch-sale-to-Santander-collapses.html

-BA- · 12 Oct 2012 at 21:06

Post and run. You rock....

Destination · 12 Oct 2012 at 22:39

VirginMoney then

pingwing · 12 Oct 2012 at 23:02

Santander don't need 316 branches to compete with their 700 branches that already compete Game style in most towns with at least 2 already....

The state needs to accept we need a state run bank to at least set an example of how to run a bank where the profits generally go back to the customer. Even if this goes massively against tory policy.

Theophany · 13 Oct 2012 at 01:55

pingwing said:
The state needs to accept we need a state run bank to at least set an example of how to run a bank where the profits generally go back to the customer. Even if this goes massively against tory policy.

No thanks. I don't want my taxes paying for it.

A bank run by 'ethics' is a bank that runs at a net loss.

minister · 13 Oct 2012 at 02:44

Hikari Kisugi said:
VirginMoney then

Branson would argue that its not at theright price.

Destination · 13 Oct 2012 at 08:13

Indeed, and he'll get it at half the cost now no one else wants it.

rishy · 13 Oct 2012 at 11:44

Well you have quite a few Lloyds TSB branches moving to the co op along with their customers.

http://www.lloydstsbtransfer.com/

ps3ud0 · 13 Oct 2012 at 13:03

pingwing said:
Santander don't need 316 branches to compete with their 700 branches that already compete Game style in most towns with at least 2 already....

Yeah I dont get this either - my town centre has 3 Santanders - the mad thing is that 2 of them are 1 door away from each other (one was an A&L branch the other a B&B) but yet theyve rebranded and kept both.

It seems mad to do so as its such an obvious way to streamline the operation as part of them buying up so many smaller building societies...

ps3ud0 :cool:

pingwing · 13 Oct 2012 at 13:13

Theophany said:
No thanks. I don't want my taxes paying for it.

A bank run by 'ethics' is a bank that runs at a net loss.

So you would rather a bank is run to line to pockets of a few people at the top?? When a state owned back could just run the profits back into the bank making everyone a few savings...

ps3ud0 said:
Yeah I dont get this either - my town centre has 3 Santanders - the mad thing is that 2 of them are 1 door away from each other (one was an A&L branch the other a B&B) but yet theyve rebranded and kept both.

It seems mad to do so as its such an obvious way to streamline the operation as part of them buying up so many smaller building societies...

ps3ud0

We have the same problem here that the main Santander bank is the big one on the high street, but on the other side they have bought 2 of the small building societies so they are competing with them selves there.

Worse still the RBS is next door to the Santander which is just stupid. They could knock them through and make a SUPER bank but that is just a pointless.

Energizer Bunny · 13 Oct 2012 at 13:26

So you would rather a bank is run to line to pockets of a few people at the top?? When a state owned back could just run the profits back into the bank making everyone a few savings...

As long as your also happy to foot the bill when it makes a loss.

Biohazard · 13 Oct 2012 at 13:49

The EU wanted to strip the wrong components out of RBS. The market share of regular retail accounts are not a real issue especially as the bigger RBS retail got the cheaper the services and charges became, it's everything else with the banks activities and structuring.

Destination · 13 Oct 2012 at 15:48

Indeed Bio.

Superficial · 13 Oct 2012 at 16:10

Biohazard said:
The EU wanted to strip the wrong components out of RBS. The market share of regular retail accounts are not a real issue especially as the bigger RBS retail got the cheaper the services and charges became, it's everything else with the banks activities and structuring.

Exactly.

This whole deal is unnecessary. The Branches are profitable.

Syla5 · 13 Oct 2012 at 17:48

The branches were only one side of the deal, the more interesting part of the deal is actually being glossed over by the press. The only reason the branches are in the headlines is because they are what joe public will relate to. The more interesting side of the deal was the 200000+ business and sme customers, that are being mentioned only as an after thought by the reports.

Theophany · 13 Oct 2012 at 21:15

pingwing said:
So you would rather a bank is run to line to pockets of a few people at the top?? When a state owned back could just run the profits back into the bank making everyone a few savings...

Yeah. Purely because the second option is false.

Read up on the differences between a bank and a co-operative. I'll give you a hint - one is run purely to achieve a profit.

MaxP779 · 13 Oct 2012 at 21:26

I worked for a brief period for an outsourcing call center which took santander calls, absolute shambles of a bank, would never go with them.

Syla5 · 13 Oct 2012 at 23:27

MaxP779 said:
I worked for a brief period for an outsourcing call center which took santander calls, absolute shambles of a bank, would never go with them.

solid insight of the bank to assume its any more of a shambles then any other. Something that has been made clear as part of this deal collapse are the issue that RBS have internally with their own systems, not to mention the monumental situation they put their customers in back in june....

MaxP779 · 14 Oct 2012 at 00:00

Syla5 said:
solid insight of the bank to assume its any more of a shambles then any other. Something that has been made clear as part of this deal collapse are the issue that RBS have internally with their own systems, not to mention the monumental situation they put their customers in back in june....

I don't think its RBS systems at fault. I could be wrong but during my time with santander they had huge IT infrastructure problems integrating the accounts inherited from alliance & leicester and bradford & bingley. The problems varied but were along the lines of new debit cards not being sent out, stuff being sent to the wrong address, deceased people getting bank statements, cards being blocked for what seems like no reason.

Plus a big hindrance was in my department nobody was sure about the phone numbers for other departments, there was a seldom updated excel document on every computer but it was horrendously out of date for some items, one of the numbers was supposed to be savings & retention's and it linked to a flower shop in manchester :rolleyes: