Where does it say that?
2 Likes
I read that as congratulations for getting your card stolen
16 Likes
Except that RBS and NatWest do have separate banking licences which would mean there can be a reason to get your own they just haven’t decided to and instead be a division of NatWest 
1 Like
RBS bought NatWest which means they would’ve had separate banking licenses before they merged.
I guess it doesn’t make sense for a legacy bank to a create a new bank and apply for a new license, it’s an necessary process and cost. They seem proud to be part of NatWest as it’s plastered all over the website!
1 Like
It didn’t have to stay that way though.
It lends the new bank some credibility which is a good thing.
1 Like
I think a unique USP for a challenger bank at the moment would be to offer chequebooks, some people still need and keep a legacy bank for this.
Interesting that minimum requirement is Android 6
No it doesn’t. That is like saying First Direct isn’t credible because it shares HSBC’s banking licence, neither is Yorkshire Bank because it shares Clydesdale Banks or Halifax because of Bank of Scotland.
Using Natwests licence gives the new bank credibility because it is backed by major high street banks banking licence. New customers will be more inclined to trust it.
Edit: Looks like I misread your comment.
Isn’t that what I said or am I missing some other point here?
4 Likes
Without forensically picking your post apart, I think that’s exactly what you said… (Anyway, I’m pretty sure that’s what you meant 
).
2 Likes
I think you somehow misread that as you just repeat him 
1 Like
Yeah I think Dave was actually saying having NatWest all over the site gives Bo credibility.
1 Like
Yep, the jury’s back in, Dave… that’s what you said 
I apologise, I took your comment as having its own licence would give credibility 
.
3 Likes
Though they probably have a spare licence they could use from another merger (they applied for one for Williams & Glyn, but not sure if they ever finalised it). I’m not saying it’s bad, just that it’s interesting they decided to do this.
I’d be interested to know if this is true. One potential downside for people with a lot of savings is the lack of separate FSCS coverage. But I wonder if it also impacts Bó’s freedom to make certain decisions independently of NatWest in the future.
I doubt they have any plans of ever selling.
What you’re witnessing is the birth of the big banks’ modern tech stacks. NatWest with Bó, Barclays with Pingit etc. They’ll operate as cute pre–paid spending accounts for a while, adding things like pots, and direct debits, and in a decade or so, when the banks’ old 1970s mainframes are really dying, they’ll rebrand back to the mother brand and the bank will silently CASS its accounts to the new tech.
12 Likes
I think most people have the misconception that the ‘legacy’ banks are running ancient, unfit for purpose systems that can’t function with modern technologies on this forum.
This simply isn’t the case. Barclays Pingit isn’t all that different from their normal Banking app and probably runs off of their normal systems.
3 Likes
Yes I’ll admit I made a leap with Pingit, but it’s articles such as this that give the impression ‘legacy [code]’ banking can’t creak on much longer.
1 Like
I worked in legacy for a short time and the back end systems are archaic at best… I have seen curve’s systems a little and read up on starling systems and they are 100x ahead of where HSBC were at when I was there.