Mutuals have long argued the benefits of the mutuality of customers and members (shareholders).
And consumer advocates have criticised the levels of bank profits generated by customer fees and charges.
But this article from the Financial Times is the first to suggest that (English) banks have lost their way:
What are banks for? In normal times, the question would seem redundant. But, with the banks now drifting rudderless in a sea of popular resentment, the answers are alarmingly vague.
Precisely to whom do banks owe their first duty of care? Is it to their shareholders, their depositors or their borrowers? Or all of those?