Welcome to a grim world where education and a home may be unaffordable, Westpac tells unborn ‘Bump’

Do you have an opinion on it or is simply knowing it exists worth our time?

Have not seen the TV version…have only seen the description on this website. However the direction of the advertisement is pessimistic and is likely to engender a sense hopelessness on the part of some people becoming first – time parents. There is no evidence of which I am aware, that could substantiate this direction. As advertising it is hopeless in itself and will turn off the interest of most readers. I also object to calling an unborn child ” a bump”…this is disrespectful…This campaign should be written off and the Bank should start again

Between this and the other disgraceful work from UBank, I’m not sure Australian Bank advertising can get any worse.

Whoever the writer was, perhaps consider a job at Hallmark, because this contrived crap is worth all of $3.95, not $300k+

Every time I see this ad on TV I cringe. I may not be the target audience (expecting parents), but it makes me re-consider banking with Westpac, as it’s crossing the line.

Westpac should be targeting the expecting parents with an offer, not attempting to recruit the unborn as new customers. *cringe*

I am not an expectant mother but I am a 20something with a realistic view on the chances of me buying property or being financially secure in the future so I felt for these soon to be parents. Banking isn’t sunshine and rainbows, it’s boring. At least this taps into a true insight.

I too am a millenial…and this makes me frustrated that Westpac would rather look at securing future customers than provide some assistance to FHBs like me. Saving for a home is a never ending game and this just makes me think they’re taking me for granted.

And as an “older”, currently-not-expecting Millennial at 31 years old who wants to have kids this next decade, I find this quite a grounded and relatable message; not so much grim, but one that reflects a true insight – that it *is* going to be hard work, I’m not sure if I will be able to afford my own house where I want to live and give my future children the best education, but I can still give it a good go by saving early. While $200 is chump change, it’s a decent broad sentiment.

… when rates go up, and repayments are unmanageable, while they may take you home you do get to keep the baby.

The conditions are a bit confusing…

On one hand it says “$200 will be available to withdraw in the month the child turns 16 and will be forfeited if the account is closed prior.”

This implies you get the $200 when the child turns 16.

On the other hand it also says “Based on the Westpac savings calculator, by building on an initial $200 deposit with a $20 contribution every week at an interest rate of 1.5 per cent, this amount will amass to $19,054.02 in savings by the time this child turns 16 (based on no withdrawals and interest accrued on $200 from child’s 1st birthday).

This implies the $200 starts earning interest from the child’s 1st birthday.

Would be good to know whether the funds earn interest or not?
.

Not sure how ‘bump’ is disrespectful – used across many parenting/mother blogs online. Vernacular some might say.

I see it as a financial trap more as a loan, $200 pfft, giving the account interest at 1.5% a year, over the years the ppl are putting in their own money( which the banks secretly “borrow” to invest in their corporate portfolios..( which is why cheques take 3 days to clear). Considering we are not a culture of savers.. even if the child saved the $20 grand, its likely to blow it on something friviolous like a holiday or a car.. look at today’s world with the insatiable need to have the electronic”latest gadget”.. usually it would be the parents saving money NOT THE CHILD, with the exception to the norm in the family household spending habits, so usually the child hasn’t adopted a fiscal mindset from an early age.. there is not a culture of sacrifice of instant gratification to savour the rewards in the end with the child.. it’ll end up being at 16 ” THAT’S MY MONEY!!” even though there wouldn’t be any financial contribution over the years. Consider other elements, the bank has already made its $200 bucks back on the other fees and charges it applies on parents credit cards( usually between 5 – 15% of outstanding balance monthly), mortgages, bank fee ect. The $200 is a carrot to create new future customers, we live more and more in a digital currency world, and less reliant on cash( this is what makes us a bit more financially savvy as it is physical currency in our hands) with the introduction of paywave,mobile payments, it’s hard to mentally keep track of spending. Society is becoming more and more slaves to technology and increasingly reliant on it, cash handling is becoming less and less, and financial institutions are not encouraging physical cash transactions( because they can’t charge interest or fees on it) even now you get charged a fee for banking at the teller on your own money which are usually charged $5 a month to maintain accounts, or $2.50 for each transaction fee’s using different ATM and other merchant outlets. so the 200 dollars they have “given” you, the banks by the time of maturity of account have probably made $20 000 – $50 000 dollars on other fee’s and charges. think how much the banks will make on those thousands of cash accounts lying dormant until maturity, to use as investment pool.. there is a reason why bank post profits in the BILLIONS half yearly and quarterly, because they are using your cash accounts to invest in.. Don’t be fooled by these gimmicks to lure you in.

Congratulations “Another Millennial’ you have just nicely articulated the core insight. Let’s assume that if your parents knew to open such an account for you when you were born you wouldn’t be caught up in the “never ending game” you find yourself in.
This offer has been going on since long before I came to Australia 50 years ago. One of the first pieces of merchandising I saw here was the Commonwealth Bank money box. Same strategy, just not as sophisticated. My 30 year old daughter had a pass book account at junior school along with the rest of her class.
Thirty years ago I had a client that introduced a ‘Year Seven’ policy. Invest for the first seven years of a child’s life or longer, and you could cash it in after seven years specifically for school expenses, regardless of whether the child was publicly or privately educated.
Life sadly isn’t serendipitous. Parents have a responsibility to provide security emotionally, physically and financially for their children, and of course where possible their grandchildren. Also of course a standard of education that allows them to make their own career and financial decisions when they come of age. The bank and the agency should be commended for making people at least think about their responsibilities to their families.
I’d also suggest people ask their bank about compound interest on general savings accounts.

Hmm, with an interest rate of 0.00000000002%, you may own a cardboard box by the age of 203934739201.

Hate the ad BTW.