It’s more of a historical argument; this is banking history and RBS has a significant stake owned by government. As Britain is the de facto banking centre of the world, we should be aiming to keep our heritage.
1 Like
That plus they haven’t considered certain “creative solutions” like closing nearby NatWest branches but saving this one.
They very much think of RBS separately to NatWest, but that’s not logical now that you can do basic transactional banking in either.
Clearly this latest spate of RBS closures has been designed to (almost) get rid of RBS in England in favour of NatWest for branding-related reasons. It’s only an accident of history that Child & Co is on the “RBS side of the business” and not the NatWest side, so that shouldn’t be a reason for closure.
Not that I’m aware of, but there aren’t other examples of prestigious branches such as this one. It is the oldest branch in the U.K. (older than the Bank of England) and the 3rd oldest bank in the world.
1 Like
I don’t think that’s entirely true I’m afraid. Outside London, all the other English RBS branch customers have received letters not dissimilar to the ones we have all received but instead letting them know they can use all the same services in their nearest Natwest branch. It can’t be simultaneously true that they are signposting RBS customers to use Natwest branch services (and the inverse in Scotland) but also that they do not see the two brands as one branch network.
I imagine there is a commercial reason why closing Child & Co is a more attractive option for them, perhaps they will expect to realise a higher value the building? Perhaps they own one and not the other?
1 Like
Bit of a strawman argument. The building and its heritage are protected. Britain’s position in the international financial services market is not connected to whether the building on Fleet Street contains an active bank.
2 Likes
Not fully, if it isn’t kept in active use. Obviously that’s better than it looking like a bank, but actually being a private club (say).
There’s a reason why National Trust attractions are kept as working mills or “as they were in their hay-day” furnished stately homes, for example. It’s a compelling sense of history which would, to some extent, be lost if they were converted - even if they looked the same from the outside.
I know that’s a bizarre example, but it illustrates the point.
In some ways, it is actually exactly that.
They believe that maintaining a separation in the public consciousness is to their benefit, so they are careful to market the two brands separately, but they treat them as one “when it suits them” (such as in throwaway comparisons in these branch closure review documents, that indicate a “good enough” sister branch is nearby).
It’s similar to how banks would never advertise their competitors, but in the same branch review documents when they are trying to make the point that there is alternative nearby access to cash, they will happily point to other banks having cash machines or branches nearby.
2 Likes
It’s heritage is being an active branch for Child & Co; it is going to cease to be that.
On the bright side, at least the inside is equally as protected as the outside. RBS could find it very hard to ditch the property (except to maybe another bank)
1 Like
My inference is that it’s mainly about getting rid of a “surplus” of RBS branches because they now favour NatWest.
That’s why this wave of closures is mainly targeting reducing the footprint of RBS in England massively; it’s about brand positioning more than money. Child & Co is hardly “RBS”, yet because it technically is under that brand it was lumped in with the other RBS branches.
You would have expected/hoped that Drummonds and Child & Co would be protected, at least to an extent, from that kind of simple analysis, but that doesn’t appear to be the case.
You can “tell” because they haven’t even sent a proper customised Child & Co letter - it’s just a verbatim copy of their standard template.
It is a bizarre analogy tbh.
Important to note that ‘working’ does not mean used industrially in the manner they were built for. There’s a big difference between charitable preservation and restricting a business’ ability to trade as and where it sees fit.
So if, notionally, Natwest were to propose that the RBS brand was to be retired and replaced with the Natwest brand across the board, you don’t believe the Child & Co branch would be closed?
Not quite. No other branches had the bit about the vault/deposit box service. I’m not saying that disproves that the Child & Co branch closing was not seen as part of the overall branch reduction programme, clearly it was, but it does prove that a branch-specific service was considered.
I expect the letter private Child & Co private clients received had more detail.
Firstly, I promise I’m not arguing with you for the sake of it - I just have a different point of view, and I think various things about the way the closure has been handled and the wider actions of the Group are clues which indicate the thinking of bosses. Obviously we cannot truly know what they are thinking, but we can at least guess and hopefully make some informed guesses by putting all the information we have together.
I did say it was! However, I think it has relevant parallels. The type of attraction I’m describing is still, fundamentally, a fully working mill. It isn’t exactly the same as it was, in say 1800, but everything evolves over time anyway - it’s close enough that it preserves the overall spirit of the original and it does still have the output of actual cloth (that you can buy in the gift shop). Yes, it’s no longer staffed by hundreds of people running at full capacity - but the machines do run, and are used so the public can see how they work, and to produce the aforementioned goods (albeit in smaller numbers than originally). If the Child & Co building remains, but only has the external facing the same, it is no longer a bank branch. If it is kept as a bank branch, that is a greater degree of preservation than simply having the empty building - much like the National Trust’s “live” attractions are much closer to the original.
I think disputing the details of my comparison is, frankly, missing the point. I am not intending to be rude here but I think the only concept I was trying to convey was that a working historical thing is “closer”/more faithful to the original than a static one. Perhaps I should have used the example of a heritage railway that still runs period steam trains, versus old disused tracks which have been converted to a cycle track.
The physical site itself, preserved in “working” mode, is of historical relevance and value.
I never said anything about “restricting the business”; I said I would reply to RBS’s consultation asking them to reconsider since I strongly suspected from their boilerplate announcement that they may not have fully or properly considered these important factors.
Personally I never did, no.
As I’ve already explained, I think they would/should follow the Holt’s model of rebranding the branch as a Child & Co + NatWest branch, rather than anything to do with RBS. The Child & Co side of the business would still actually be RBS legally and systems-wise, but that wouldn’t be advertised. Exactly as Holt’s is now. I doubt they’ve thought of that - and it may be significant.
I assumed that Child & Co and Drummonds would always be the “last branches standing” if the group ever decided to pull out of branch banking altogether, due to their historical value alone. Aside from that, there are also operational reasons why the branches exist. Private clients are serviced by bankers that physically work in the two branches, and although a lot of menial back-office stuff is “outsourced” to general RBS services, they are effectively running a stand-alone bank out of these two branches with their own managers, staff and so on. So to move the whole operation elsewhere is a significant undertaking.
My understanding is that there has already been a significant sharing of resources between Drummonds, Child & Co and Coutts - so it may be that they are adopting a hybrid model (after testing this during Covid) where staff will sometimes work from home and other times from either Drummonds or a Coutts office. The leadership team of Drummonds and Child & Co has been shared for some time. Clients will be able to have virtual meetings with their private banker, or meet at a Coutts office, or meet at Drummonds or, possibly, at a time/place that’s mutually convenient. Their private banker may travel to their home or business, for example. There still has to be some kind of base, so I suspect that this is actually a merger with Drummonds in the background but it is curious why that wasn’t made the new “home branch” of existing customers if so. It could simply be that even that part of the process is automated and the Victoria branch may be closer, so was automatically picked. After all, it’s only a nominal relocation.
I also don’t personally believe that the RBS brand will ever fully go away as it would be too politically unpalatable in Scotland, so is a none-starter. As two of the UK’s biggest banks, there would also be political and regulatory backlash to a merging of the RBS and NatWest banking licenses (which would have to happen if RBS was ever fully merged with and absorbed into NatWest branding).
It was also telling that back when all of RBS in England & Wales was to be sold off to Santander as Williams & Glyn, Drummonds and Child & Co were to be retained. When RBS split the IT system in preparation for a sale, Drummonds and Child & Co stayed as “Scottish RBS”. I always thought that their special status as “Scottish RBS but in England” was recognition of their historical value and the fact that RBS never intended to part with them (or Holt’s).
I actually think that’s likely also part of the boiler-plate auto-generated letter; it’s just that you don’t normally see it because “normal” branches don’t have safety deposit boxes and it would clearly make no sense to make reference to them if that were the case.
I don’t think it proves that anything about the special status of the branch was considered, frankly, as it makes no reference to anything else specific to Child & Co. And yes, the fact the closure was announced at the same time as a whole programme of others proves that it was just a number in another round of cuts - not given any special attention. I would have expected a closure announcement, if it ever came, to have been about this branch only and not announced with a general “set” of closures, given the special arrangements involved.
I saw on MSE shortly after everyone got the standard letter that somebody’s friend who had a genuine private banking account with relationship manager didn’t get the letter (or any letter about the closure) at all, so I’m not sure they did get informed in any more detail.
It wouldn’t have taken much to add a special Child & Co branded letter page, before the standard RBS template document. I would have expected it to say something along the lines of:
The Child & Co Fleet Street branch is closing.
We understand that this may be disappointing news, but we have taken the decision to close the Child & Co branch at 1 Fleet Street on DATE.
We are still committed to serving our valued Child & Co clients under this historic brand, and there will be no changes to your accounts or services other than the branch closing. We understand the importance our clients place on a personal, high quality service and we will continue to provide this in new ways.
During the coronavirus pandemic, like many businesses, we have adopted different ways of working which we believe may suit our customers better on a long-term basis. Consequently, we will now be able to offer our customers the same personal service they expect in a more flexible way.
Personal Bankers for Child & Co private clients will not change, and if you want to meet your personal banker face-to-face we can arrange this at our affiliated bank Drummonds. We will also be able to arrange virtual meetings with you if this is something you would prefer.
Simple banking activities, like withdrawing or paying-in cash, continue to be available at any NatWest or RBS branch.
******** signed off by Child & Co branch manager
1 Like
As I say, best of luck, but I would not expect an objection on the grounds of historic importance to be upheld. If they wanted to completely closedown the entire Child & Co operation they would be able to, subject to all the regularatory hurdles (none of which are related to cultural significance).
If you think about it, and again in the context of the forum as a Fintech focussed board, would forcing the historic banking groups to continue to offer loss-making services which their upstart rivals don’t have to really be a precedent you’d want to set?
1 Like
The reason the Royal Bank is retained in Scotland is purely commercial - they retain the ability to issue notes and the kudos of being linked to the country. There would be zero regulatory issues in the Royal Bank being merged fully into NatWest Bank and becoming a trading name like Ulster Bank. It should not be lost that it’s likely that should Scotland re-join the EU or EEA then they couldn’t operate in Scotland via a English/Welsh banking licence.
Big topic, but without making it an anti-indy thread; this isn’t a short-term problem. Scotland would need a minimum of 5 years to meet EU membership criteria (establishing their own currency, unlinking it from the British Pound) + they’d have to adopt the euro upon making that commitment (not just a flimsy \commitment\ like used to be required).
It’s unlikely they’d be able to sell that to the electorate, as even SNP-loving Scots love the pound (20% favoured the euro over it last I checked); very likely that they’d sit on EFTA or a much further away from central EU regulation and EEA banking licences scheme
Stick with the Rusky analysis 
Genuine question - why did HBOS require an act of parliament to merge under one banking license then?
I presumed the reason was that there was a regulatory issue there.
Sturgeon herself said that a Scottish currency being established wouldn’t be a minute process, buffoon
What is with the political stuff on here today? Tedious beyond belief.
HBOS didn’t require an Act of the UK Parliament nor did it ever have a banking licence?
It’s because of non-story about a French Bank opting to surcharge cash withdrawals with non-EEA cards including the non-EEA UK.
HBOS Group Reorganisation Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk)
HBOS had several banking licenses under various subsidiary companies, and the act of parliament bought about their merger in to one (Bank of Scotland).
1 Like
A privately-sponsored Act of Parliament was needed because the Bank of Scotland was not a PLC but established under an Act of the Scottish Parliament in 1695, and governed by various other bits of separate legislation since.
The 2006 Act allowed it to be registered as a PLC.
2 Likes