Not all banks are going bust.

[Nwada001]

I intoduced the owner of the local pub to the Portman ( the society that was taken over by the Nationwide), and he used it for the pub account, but this was because he was a soile trader, and it was in his name.

That's why you are more like a referral now; you have invited someone out of your good will and the love you have for the bank to invite someone else over who you want to experience what's actually happened over there.

There is no way all banks will go burst, remember some of these banks are well-managed and there are some with too-big-to-fail status though they are all greedy bastards. The good ones and well-capitalized ones will swallow the bad ones and close to bankruptcy banks, this is not peculiar to banks but all businesses, just look at the number of businesses that have folded up since last year and we are still counting. The strong ones will remain and the weak ones will die this is how human being survived over the centuries

I actually agree with the fact that not all banks will burst. But this is not the main case here.
We are actually talking about the bonus with which a particular financial sector rewarded each of their customers £100, of which Jet Cash was also a benefactor. This could be a result of either the bank sharing their accumulated profit across all their customers or selecting their customers based on certain criteria.

[1715608072]

1715608072

[1715608072]

1715608072

[1715608072]

1715608072

[1715608072]

1715608072

[dansus021]

Yes it is not all bank are going to bust in fact the bank has been act as a key for the economy for the past century. I think what happen to recent bank collapse is economic instability and pretty much lots of going on in the real world.

Covid, War, Economic War, and the child is recession and inflation.

[benalexis12]

That's great, I hope all banks are like that to their clients. But you mentioned that it's not really a bank, right? but included in the Mutual Building Society category, how is it that despite the fact that it is not a bank in real terms, they are able to issue credit cards, and even offer mortgages as if the system is also a bank?
Are there any resources of this business you are talking about? probably there is, because if it doesn't have other assets, it will appear where they get the incentives they give every month to their qualified clients in this regard?

[crwth]

That's a great bank that you have shared their benefits with regard to having too much money and profiting from the events that happened or whatever that they have.

I think the payment was a one off gesture.
The restrictions on the Nationwide are for it to provide a service to personal investors. They can't lend to businesses or corporatuiions. Although having said that, I intoduced the owner of the local pub to the Portman ( the society that was taken over by the Nationwide), and he used it for the pub account, but this was because he was a soile trader, and it was in his name.

I'm a bit of a cynic, and I'm not sure that the payment was a wholly altruistic act. The UK government is scratchung around for extra things to tax. Energy companies and some othersare always being considered for "windfall" taxes. It may be that the Nationwide felt that giving its members a bonus may take it off the radar for a windfall tax. Of course it may just be that they are nice people running the society.

Is it because they can lessen taxes or something? Or maybe as dividends?

[Majestic-milf]

 I believe this bank has been able to catch your fancy to the point of sharing the experience here because of their ability to have understood and anticipated your needs. What sets agencies apart is their tendency to think outside the box and if what I've read is right, they just did that.
 Other banks have being going under probably as a result of not being able to meet up obligations to creditors and depositors which is prompted by the assets falling below the market value.

[Strongkored]

Wow, the bank is very generous by sharing the profits with its users freely, because they can hide the profits only for the bank itself and I have never found a bank in my country that does this, usually, they will only do a giveaway in a certain period by giving tickets numbers to users who have a certain balance every month to enter in the draw and this is just a marketing trick to attract more users. Usually, banks will prefer to take a lot of profit from their users with large monthly fees, but your bank is very generous in doing this.
It is true that not all banks will go bust, but even if they fail because of their mistakes in management it is not a mistake of use, and it can also happen because of channeling loans on uncertain business or on creditors who do not have sufficient assets.

[slapper]

The equivalent of finding a golden ticket in a Wonka bar would be this situation. A cut of the profits going back to Nationwide's patrons? That's about as unusual as a unicorn, especially given the general public's negative perception of banks. But there is an important qualifier to keep in mind. Nationwide has established a stronghold of conservative practises, avoiding risky endeavours such as making loans to developing countries or dabbling in volatile financial products. But wouldn't that also mean missing out on some interesting prospects? After all, luck shines upon the brave.

And holy cow, isn't your comparison to the consolidation of banks dead on? It's like a real-life version of Monopoly, but the wealthy get all the property and the poor have to fight over the leftovers. Toxic loans concentrate money and power like sly 'chance' cards in our favourite game. Funny thing is, we complain about banks all the time, but we still rush to put our money in their hands. What a perfect example of a broken relationship!

[indo1]

well, it depends on how they manage their customers' money. Those who sometimes offer lots of promotions as if they were the best bank actually became the fastest bank to bankrupt. I'm sure the bank that really deserves to be the bank that lasts the longest is the one that really carries out its functions like a bank in general without exaggerating and has a sharp analysis of financial circulation.

[yhiaali3]

I think this is the main reason for governments' hostility to decentralized cryptocurrencies, through the centralization of banks, governments can control citizens and keep them submissive through debt or control financial transactions.

If we look further, we find that the same policy is followed to control poor countries with large internal wealth through control of large international banks and the International Monetary Fund as well.

Where rich countries that control the International Monetary Fund lend large loans to poor countries that they are unable to repay, and thus their policy becomes hostage to rich countries and their national wealth becomes the property of these countries.

[jokers10]

I've just been notified by my bank that they are paying me £100 under their fairer share policy.
...

Banks are competing with each other and now they are competing with crypto also. So they don't want to bust not today only but in the future as well. Having contented and loyal customers makes a bank more stable. If they don't make big mistakes and they satisfy their customers then probably they can succeed. £100 per client is probably in proportion of what they spend on advertising and you show that it works: you feel that your bank is okay, that your bank is not too greedy and cares about clients, that your bank is managed well. Well, they did it successfully! My congrats to you and to them!

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

Taking loan from banks will hypnotized you your right to freedom, that is why in cryptocurrency we don't take loan because we don't want to be in an everlasting debt, whereas in cryptocurrency you have that opportunity to recover your debt through the investment you made which gives you the freedom needed to shield you against inflation or any economy imbalance challenges with the financial system

[Flexystar]

Does this mean their toxic loan schemes has led to huge wealth collection and that’s not fitting right within the accounting books? This is why they are giving away money to their premium clients like you! I am not sure what to take from this incidence and why any bank or financial institute just give away money like that. Banks are one of the institutes that are known to be Money lynchers. Lolz.
I don’t know if that is the proper wording but yeah they keep sucking money and yet they feel it’s not much for them. The only reason they end up in bankruptcy and bad scheme give away is because of the suspicious practices such as the one you have explained here.

[Gyfts]

I think the payment was a one off gesture.
The restrictions on the Nationwide are for it to provide a service to personal investors. They can't lend to businesses or corporatuiions. Although having said that, I intoduced the owner of the local pub to the Portman ( the society that was taken over by the Nationwide), and he used it for the pub account, but this was because he was a soile trader, and it was in his name.

I'm a bit of a cynic, and I'm not sure that the payment was a wholly altruistic act. The UK government is scratchung around for extra things to tax. Energy companies and some othersare always being considered for "windfall" taxes. It may be that the Nationwide felt that giving its members a bonus may take it off the radar for a windfall tax. Of course it may just be that they are nice people running the society.

Presumably they only do this to creditors who hold a balance large enough to sustain the banks profitability. "Incentive payment" is what they call it when it's in effect an interest payment bonus.

Not all banks are required to do this, so I'd take it as a kind gesture on behalf of the banks. Surely the banks would have had to pay taxes on the profits anyways so whether it was transferred to you or stayed within the system it still would have been taxed. That is, unless the banks do some clever accounting.

[bayudndy]

100 euros is a considerable amount for a customer gift. Perhaps they are pushing to offer incentives, such as cash rewards or gifts, that can be an effective way to garner interest and increase customer engagement. While economic uncertainties and interest rate fluctuations can actually have different effects on the banking sector, gift giving like this contributes to more trust and increased exposure to customers. This can also contribute to improving and promoting customer care, which is very important in the banking and finance industries.

[bayu7adi]

The way banks treat customers with a positive account balance might be considered more favorable than those with a negative balance. However, these two types of customers complement each other, as when a customer with a credit balance pays their bills on time, it ensures a smooth flow of money within the banking system.

As a customer, receiving a benefit of 180 Euros within three months is extremely advantageous. You need Nationwide to safeguard your money, but surprisingly, Nationwide rewards you for keeping your money with them. Is it possible that this only applies to customers with a certain account balance?

This is impressive but on the other hand if you look at it very well you will understand that they are as well doing marketing to attract more customers, especially since you said they don't operate as bank but to me they have intention to starts operating as bank.

And now I find myself captivated by Nationwide after reading @Jet Cash's story. Is that strategy truly casting a spell on me? 

[Darker45]

That's amazing. It isn't indeed a bank in the full sense because I have yet to receive a share of any of my bank's profit however huge it may be. The profit is always theirs. I'm only given the standard less than 0.1% per annum for my savings. And they're using my money to make wealth.

It seems your bank is like financial cooperatives here in my country. I also have an account in one of them and I get a nice slice of its profit every year. It depends on how much money you have in your account, but it doesn't go down lower than 10% of it per annum.

[Kakmakr]

The previous Banking crisis was caused by Fractional reserve banking, where only a fraction of bank deposits are required to be available for withdrawal, the rest are loaned out to lenders. This is the building blocks of any Banks, no matter how big you are.

You do not have to loan money to foreign countries to have toxic loans, it can happen with local loans too, when they have reckless lending practices. Do you know what amount of money do your Bank have to have in reserve, according to your local laws?

[jokers10]

Does this mean their toxic loan schemes has led to huge wealth collection and that’s not fitting right within the accounting books?
...

Don't think badly of their wallets, they can hold much, much more! But it is a way of not so expensive advertising: you give £100 for a client and then your clients spread the word about the generosity of their bank. And as you can see, it works. Moreover if I wanted to search a bank for some purpose it can be a good advertisement that they have extra money for that and are not in need. In another hand they can be in need and imitate stability... But well, it will work in this case also, I guess.

[el kaka22]

I think some banks are doing better because they had better investments, and some banks will collapse because they had bad investments and that is the difference, we are going to see that happen a lot better and a lot more.

I however believe that all banks should be regulated a lot more and that will cause some of them to bankrupt, but I am fine with making them publicly owned, and that means our tax money will go towards making banks do better and not "saving" a bank, but actually owning them. This will make sure that everyone gets their money, any private bank can follow up the laws, and any who can't will be just publicly owned by the government. Like it or not, that will make the future a lot better for everyone without a doubt.

[jokers10]

I think some banks are doing better because they had better investments, and some banks will collapse because they had bad investments and that is the difference, we are going to see that happen a lot better and a lot more.

I however believe that all banks should be regulated a lot more and that will cause some of them to bankrupt, but I am fine with making them publicly owned, and that means our tax money will go towards making banks do better and not "saving" a bank, but actually owning them. This will make sure that everyone gets their money, any private bank can follow up the laws, and any who can't will be just publicly owned by the government. Like it or not, that will make the future a lot better for everyone without a doubt.

When an ineffective bank management will meet an ineffective government regulation why will it make a future better? Governmental management is less effective than a competitive private, so government shouldn't interfere where it is not really necessary. Additional regulation without a critical reason is not a good idea. Even if I don't like bank system as it is it doesn't mean that I'd like to see something even worst, totally governmental banking system! 😂