For bank customers, nearly 33 per cent have never switched – but 34 per cent have changed two or more times.Paul Chiasson/The Canadian Press
If there’s one compelling takeaway from our survey on attitudes towards banks and telecom providers, it’s this: We like our banks. Telecoms? Whatever.
We received nearly 2,000 responses to our online poll last week, which was aimed at our apparent reluctance to switch brands even when high fees and disappointing customer service are a continuing source of frustration.
The strong feedback from you suggests that this is a hot topic.
And little wonder: The banking and telecom sectors are dominated by giants, which limit consumer choice and can leave us with the feeling that all members of these cozy oligopolies are essentially the same.
Hence, there’s lots to complain about.
The telecoms that keep our smartphones ringing and Love Island streaming certainly don’t get much love from consumers.
Just 41 per cent of respondents to our poll are satisfied with their current telecom company, and a sizeable 21 per cent are unsatisfied.
Those sitting in the middle form a large group, at 38 per cent of respondents, suggesting considerable indifference here as well.
In contrast, banks enjoy more support: 61 per cent of respondents said they were satisfied with their current lender, compared with just 8 per cent who were unsatisfied.
How do these views feed into our likelihood of switching? This is where things get interesting, because we are generally staying put.
Just 7.2 per cent of respondents said they were “very likely” to switch telecom providers within the next year. For banks, that number is even lower, at 5.4 per cent.
Most respondents appear to acknowledge that it’s easier to complain about customer service, or fees, than do anything about it.
In some ways, this is entirely understandable. Some of us benefit from bundled services that deliver discounts that essentially bind us to one provider. It can also make comparison shopping very difficult.
As we get older, some of us may grow more reluctant to adjust our complex web of financial and telecom services because of a couple of frustrating experiences.
“Switching banks or telcos is a logistical nightmare, and I’d have to be damned mad to do it again,” said Mike, 64, in the comments to the poll.
What’s more, some of us may doubt that switching will generate a better experience over time, given the similarities and relatively stable market share among competitors.
“Quite frankly, each individual bank has their issues and there is really no great advantage of one over another,” said Doug, 65.
Another commentor, who didn’t leave a name, said: “It’s like the old greener pastures story, so I doubt there would be any difference unless you feel like ‘I showed them.’”
But that’s an okay response to bad service. Consumers have choice and can exercise it by walking away when they are dissatisfied. This is particularly true for the banking sector, where online competitors to the big banks are appealing to new customers.
For bank customers, nearly 33 per cent have never switched – but 34 per cent have changed two or more times.
“I switched to Wealthsimple about a year and a half ago and am very happy I did. No fees and little to no wait time for customer service,” said Gord, 53.
For telecom customers, just 22 per cent of respondents said they had never switched providers, compared with 50 per cent who have changed providers two or more times because they were unhappy with the service.
The best part about switching: It keeps banks and telecoms on their toes. And that’s good for everyone.
Here’s a specific question for you this week: If you’ve changed your smartphone provider or the bank that holds you chequing account within the past couple of years, how easy (or difficult) was the process? Let me know at dberman@globeandmail.com.
Subscribe to the On Money newsletter
David Berman’s personal finance reading list
This U.S. stock market indicator is at a bigger extreme than during the dot-com bubble
If you want something to worry about, this is for you: In April and May, the S&P 500 Momentum Index, which tracks U.S. stocks with persistent outperformance, surged 34 per cent. That was its best two-month performance in more than three decades – and a source of concern for anyone worried about an equity bubble.
Why some bond funds have been slow to recover
Bond funds were hit hard when inflation spiked in 2022. Some are close to a full recovery now, after factoring in distributions. Others are still well below their highs: “The catch is that ‘the bond market’ papers over enormous dispersion. The single variable that decided what recovered and what didn’t was duration, the measure of how sensitive a bond is to rate moves.”
Taking a total return approach to emerging-market debt
Global asset manager GMO makes the case for emerging-market debt, which rests on undervalued local currencies (relative to the lofty U.S. dollar) and relatively high interest rates. With these two factors combined, the asset class looks better than it has in decades.
Chart of the day
Canada’s bank stocks are historically expensive, according to this chart. Why is no one willing to bet against them?
Old products that caught my eye
Vintage IKEA products from the 1970s and 1980s are in high demand among consumers today. Two examples: a telescopic desk lamp is going for US$400 on 1stDibs and a 70s “impala” lounge chair is listed at over US$12,000 – no assembly required (subscribers to The Wall Street Journal can read more about this trend here).
In the social sphere
Watch
Jamie Dimon, chief executive officer at JPMorgan Chase & Co. and one of the most astute observers of the global economy, sits for a one-hour interview where he tells us what asset class looks unattractive right now: U.S. bonds. Start at the 10-minute mark for the good stuff.
The money-free zone
The New Yorker makes the case that Christopher Nolan’s new film, The Odyssey, rather than a departure, has roots in his earlier films: He has been “ringing variations on the Odyssey for decades, and the new film has the quality of a palimpsest, in which even familiar twists in the tale reverberate anew with echoes from across his filmography.”
