The Bank of Farage

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

tbf, the banks have form on this sort of thing…

https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...no-explanation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28553921

https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...aundering-laws

https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...omers-accounts

---------- Post added at 09:23 ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 ----------



In your words…

In THEIR words.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by denphone

He always tries to portray himself as the victim.

Strange that a man who tries to portray himself as a fag and beer man is really full of bullshit and fake sincerity.

He's a clever shock jock and making a good living out of it. Credit where it's due, he's made the most out of his huge personality.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

What about the "but one centred around inclusivity and Purpose" bit? In other words having "unauthorised" opinions.

No idea what they mean by "Purpose" but it may be explained in the dossier. Presumably by "inclusivity" they feel that Coutts' association with Farage may deter some people banking with them and they've decided that the potential profit from those people outweighs the potential profit from retaining Farage. That's the private banking business for you.[/QUOTE]
So certain people who go on and on about "inclusivity", want certain other people excluded? Not very inclusive. Bit like referring to some people as "Terfs".
A central point is that the banks shouldn't be looking into the opinions of people. The whole tone of the report exudes bias, using terms and references from biased sources.

[1andrew1]

Coutts bank has said it does not close customer accounts "solely on the basis of legally held political and personal views" as it came under heavy criticism for terminating its relationship with Nigel Farage.

In a new statement, a Coutts spokesperson said: "We recognise the substantial interest in this case. We cannot comment on the detail given our customer confidentiality obligations.

"However, it is not Coutts' policy to close customer accounts solely on the basis of legally held political and personal views.

"Decisions to close an account are not taken lightly and involve a number of factors including commercial viability, reputational considerations, and legal and regulatory requirements.

"We recognise the critical importance of access to banking. When it became clear that our client was unable to secure banking facilities elsewhere, and as he has confirmed publicly, he was offered alternative banking facilities with NatWest. That offer stands.

"We understand the public concern that the processes for ending a customer relationship, and how that is communicated, are not sufficiently transparent."

They added: "We welcome the anticipated HM Treasury recommendations in this area, alongside the ask to prioritise the review of the regulatory rules relating to politically exposed persons.

"We look forward to working with government, the regulator and the wider industry to ensure that universal access to banking is maintained."

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...b2e42e4f2&ei=7

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...b2e42e4f2&ei=7

So if not based upon his opinions, why did they have a LONG discussion on his opinions? Why mention so much on what is supposedly never going to be part of the decision? Completely contradictory.

The night before the BBC ran a story claiming Coutts de-banked Farage for commercial reasons, the BBC’s business Editor Simon Jack was sitting next to NatWest CEO Alison Rose at a charity dinner.

The Torygraph is going hard on the insinuation that Rose whispered something in Jack’s ear.

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%...tweet-claim%2F

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by jfman

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

I was thinking about this today in the shower where I have my best thoughts…

For us plebs, we decide to go with a certain supplier at least partially due to that suppliers brand. The key question is does that suppliers brand match my values and aspirations? Companies like Apple and Waitrose carefully maintain their brands as the high end option for example even if objective analysis might show other options to be better.

If the brand is strong enough, we can do little to influence it apart from walking away. Of course, if enough customers walk away, a change in the brand might be needed but on an individual level, we either accept what is offered or not. If we don’t walk away, we have endorsed that brand implicitly.

What is different here is Nigel Farages brand is incredibly strong. Like him or not, he has very carefully cultivated his position to appeal to a lot of people. The strength of his brand is such that the customer-supplier relationship has flipped round with Nigel Farage being the senior partner. If Coutts continued their relationship then they implicitly endorse Nigel Farages brand and that’s a direction that they clearly didn’t want to take

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

I was thinking about this today in the shower where I have my best thoughts…

For us plebs, we decide to go with a certain supplier at least partially due to that suppliers brand. The key question is does that suppliers brand match my values and aspirations? Companies like Apple and Waitrose carefully maintain their brands as the high end option for example even if objective analysis might show other options to be better.

If the brand is strong enough, we can do little to influence it apart from walking away. Of course, if enough customers walk away, a change in the brand might be needed but on an individual level, we either accept what is offered or not. If we don’t walk away, we have endorsed that brand implicitly.

What is different here is Nigel Farages brand is incredibly strong. Like him or not, he has very carefully cultivated his position to appeal to a lot of people. The strength of his brand is such that the customer-supplier relationship has flipped round with Nigel Farage being the senior partner. If Coutts continued their relationship then they implicitly endorse Nigel Farages brand and that’s a direction that they clearly didn’t want to take

Great post, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Originally Posted by nomadking

In THEIR words.

In the Bank’s words

Barclays now accepts that, according to a spokesperson, “the original investigation was poorly managed, and our decision to close the account incorrect”.

[ianch99]

As far as Coutts is concerned, I really don't know what the fuss is all about. He was dropped for commercial reasons i.e. he is so toxic he would jeopardise new customers.

From Nov 22:

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by ianch99

As far as Coutts is concerned, I really don't know what the fuss is all about. He was dropped for commercial reasons i.e. he is so toxic he would jeopardise new customers.

From Nov 22:

And all the other pages in the document? If that was the case, why the need for all the other pages filled with biased nonsense? They closed his account, there and then, not at some point in the future. Even then, the sensible business decision would be to warn somebody that they were at risk of no longer being eligible, so they had the chance to be prepared to move accounts or perhaps to pay more into the account in order to still qualify.
It was a review aimed at a PERSON, not an account. How was that PERSON selected for review in the first place?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

And all the other pages in the document? If that was the case, why the need for all the other pages filled with biased nonsense? They closed his account, there and then, not at some point in the future. Even then, the sensible business decision would be to warn somebody that they were at risk of no longer being eligible, so they had the chance to be prepared to move accounts or perhaps to pay more into the account in order to still qualify.
It was a review aimed at a PERSON, not an account. How was that PERSON selected for review in the first place?

He was given notice his accounts were being closed. They weren't closed in November 2022.

Just because you're a Farage Fan and don't agree with Coutts' analysis does not make it biased nonsense.
He was a poltically-exposed person so would be flagged by software on the bank's CRM taken from PEP lists. Then the bank would monitor his press.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

He was given notice his accounts were being closed. They weren't closed in November 2022.

Just because you're a Farage Fan and don't agree with Coutts' analysis does not make it biased nonsense.
He was a poltically-exposed person so would be flagged by software on the bank's CRM taken from PEP lists. Then the bank would monitor his press.

Andrew Neil has been going over the ‘dossier’ of Coutts internal discussions about how to get rid of Farage’s accounts and they are not nearly as dispassionate as you’re making them out to be.

Killer quotes: “… his publicly stated views … are at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.”

“… not a political decision but one entered around inclusivity and purpose.”

The documents also show that Coutts planned to use the final paying down of his mortgage, which was due to occur this month, as the pretext for closing his accounts, on the basis that he was no longer a “criteria client” (not borrowing or investing enough). The discussion about his views as the real reason for de-banking him was not supposed to get out.

Had they intended to use perfectly understandable, industry-wide criteria about political exposure as the reason to de-bank him, you would have thought they could have just been up-front and said so. It’s clear, however, that they attempted to hide their disapproval of his views behind the natural winding-down of his mortgage.

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/16...56-Kgau3lzowJw

[jfman]

Could it not equally be considered that they weighed up the merits of retaining him despite not meeting their criteria?

The final payment on his mortgage is the point where he no longer met the criteria. It doesn’t need to be a pretext for anything - it’s the exact moment it’s appropriate to bin him under their own rules .

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Andrew Neil has been going over the ‘dossier’ of Coutts internal discussions about how to get rid of Farage’s accounts and they are not nearly as dispassionate as you’re making them out to be.

Killer quotes: “… his publicly stated views … are at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.”

“… not a political decision but one entered around inclusivity and purpose.”

The documents also show that Coutts planned to use the final paying down of his mortgage, which was due to occur this month, as the pretext for closing his accounts, on the basis that he was no longer a “criteria client” (not borrowing or investing enough). The discussion about his views as the real reason for de-banking him was not supposed to get out.

Had they intended to use perfectly understandable, industry-wide criteria about political exposure as the reason to de-bank him, you would have thought they could have just been up-front and said so. It’s clear, however, that they attempted to hide their disapproval of his views behind the natural winding-down of his mortgage.

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/16...56-Kgau3lzowJw

None of that supports the argument that the document was "filled with biased nonsense" which is the point I was contesting with Nomad.

I've previously posted and discussed the section that referred to inclusivity and Purpose.

I agree that based on the above, they should have been upfront with him. However, as jfman says, there's a good case to be made that he no longer met their criteria once the mortgage was paid off so they would have been correct in closing his accounts. If so, why throw petrol on the fire by talking about Purpose an inclusivity?