Lloyds used µ­Ï¿¡¤µ­Ï¿Åª¤Ê¡¿µ­Ï¿¤¹¤ë low Ψs to bump up Íø±×¡Ê¤ò¤¢¤²¤ë¡Ë Íø¤¶¤äs by fiddling with borrowing and Ãù¶â ¼è°ú¡¤¶¨Äês

Britain's biggest bank °ú¤­¾å¤²¡Ê¤ë¡Ëd its Íø±×¡Ê¤ò¤¢¤²¤ë¡Ë Íø¤¶¤äs by fiddling with borrowing and Ãù¶â ¼è°ú¡¤¶¨Äês while Íø±×¡¿¶½Ì£ Ψs languished at µ­Ï¿¡¤µ­Ï¿Åª¤Ê¡¿µ­Ï¿¤¹¤ë lows.

A Mail Ä´ºº has discovered how Lloyds Banking Group has managed to ²¡¤·¿Ê¤á¤ë up its Íø±×¡Ê¤ò¤¢¤²¤ë¡Ë Íø¤¶¤äs on ÂßÉÕ¶âs and deposits to the same level as before the ºâÀ¯¾å¤Î ´íµ¡.

This is ¤Ë¤â¤«¤«¤ï¤é¤º big ºâÀ¯¡¿¶âÍ» houses complaining that the µ­Ï¿¡¤µ­Ï¿Åª¤Ê¡¿µ­Ï¿¤¹¤ë low Bank of England base Ψ of 0.25 per cent »Ï¤á¤ë¡¤·è¤á¤ë in August last year after the Brexit Åêɼ¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë had squeezed their returns.

Lloyds  has managed to push up its profit margins on loans and deposits to the same level as before the financial crisis

Lloyds has managed to ²¡¤·¿Ê¤á¤ë up its Íø±×¡Ê¤ò¤¢¤²¤ë¡Ë Íø¤¶¤äs on ÂßÉÕ¶âs and deposits to the same level as before the ºâÀ¯¾å¤Î ´íµ¡

After Ψs were Áý²Ã¤¹¤ëd on Thursday, Èó¡¤ÉÔ¡¤Ìµ of the big banks has Ìó«d to Áý²Ã¤¹¤ë Ãù¶â Ψs, while many have ÀÀÌó¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ëd to raise the cost of mortgage ¼è°ú¡¤¶¨Äês .

Lloyds¡Ç ÂáÊ᤹¤ë Íø±×¡¿¶½Ì£ Íø¤¶¤ä, which essentially Âкö the difference they make from borrowers and what they »Ùʧ¤¦¡¿Ä¶â savers, has climbed to 2.9 per cent.

This is an Áý²Ã¤¹¤ë from the 2.74 per cent it made when Ψs were last 0.5 per cent, and the 2.69 per cent it made just after the ºï¸º¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë.

Santander has also managed to tweak its Íø±×¡¿¶½Ì£ Ψs so they are also making more cash from savers and borrowers.

Its ÂáÊ᤹¤ë Íø±×¡¿¶½Ì£ Íø¤¶¤ä is 1.91 per cent, compared with 1.55 per cent before the last Ψ ºï¸º¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë.

Critics ÇúÇËd the Âߤ¹¿Ís for lining their own pockets at the expense of hard-°µÎϡʤò¤«¤±¤ë¡Ëd families.

Justin Modray of ¾ÃÈñ¼Ô group?Candid Money?said: ¡ÆIt¡Çs ¶Ã¤¯¤Ù¤­¡¿ÆÃÌ¿¤Î¡¿Î×»þ¤Î that Íø¤¶¤äs have gone up and ¼¨º¶¤¹¤ës the public is ¸ºß °·¤¦¡¿¼£ÎŤ¹¤ëd as a cash cow.¡Ç

When the Bank of England ºï¸º¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë Íø±×¡¿¶½Ì£ Ψs to 0.25 per cent it was ¹­ÈϰϤˤ錄¤Ã¤Æ ͽÊ󤹤ëd to »¼º High Street Âߤ¹¿Ís¡Ç ¼ýÆþs by making it more difficult for them to rake in ÎÁ¶âs from borrowers.?

Banks make their Íø±×¡Ê¤ò¤¢¤²¤ë¡Ës by collecting deposits from savers and lending them out to borrowers.

In most »öÎã¡¿´µ¼Ôs, the Íø¤¶¤ä for Âߤ¹¿Ís fell after the Bank Ψ was ºï¸º¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë ? at Barclays¡Ç UK ¾¦Çä¡¿»Å»ö, for instance, they dropped from 3.59 per cent before it was ºï½ü¤¹¤ëd in June 2016 to 3.28 per cent a year later.

But Lloyds and Santander made cunning tweaks to their À½ÉÊs to bump up their Äì¡Ê¤ËÆϤ¯¡Ë line.

Its ÂáÊ᤹¤ë Íø±×¡¿¶½Ì£ Íø¤¶¤ä is at the highest level in more than a £±£°Ç¯´Ö, before the ºâÀ¯¾å¤Î ´íµ¡ decimated banking.?

But at the end of 2006 ? when the Íø¤¶¤ä was last higher ? the Bank Ψ stood at 5 per cent. °ìÊý¡¿¹ç´Ö, ¸ÜµÒs with Lloyds¡Ç Ê¿°×¤Ê Saver account earn a measly 0.05 per cent a year in Íø±×¡¿¶½Ì£ ? or just ¡ò5 for every ¡ò1,000 they have saved.

The bank is thought to have ¡ò90billion of mortgages which Àפò¤Ä¤±¤ë the Bank Ψ and will therefore automatically Áý²Ã¤¹¤ë in price, Äɲ乤ëing ¡ò1billion to the coffers of the Âߤ¹¿Í. It means Íø±×¡Ê¤ò¤¢¤²¤ë¡Ës will see an instant uptick thanks to the Ψ °ú¤­¾å¤²¡Ê¤ë¡Ë.

Santander¡Çs Íø±×¡Ê¤ò¤¢¤²¤ë¡Ës climbed 1pc to ¡ò1.6billion in the first nine months of the year. The bank ľÌ̤¹¤ëd a ÌÔÎõ¤Ê¡¿»ÄǦ¤Ê ¡Ê·ã¤·¤¤¡Ëȿȯ after the ºï¸º¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë for Àڤ곫¤¯¡¿¥¿¥¯¥·¡¼¡¿ÉÔÀµ¥¢¥¯¥»¥¹ing the Íø±×¡¿¶½Ì£ on its popular 123 ¸½ºß¤Î from 3 per cent to 1.5 per cent.

Lloyds and Santander both said the Ψ ºï¸º¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë was passed on in ½½Ê¬¤Ê to mortgage ¸ÜµÒs.

A Lloyds ¹­ÊóôÅö¼Ô said the bank¡Çs ¡ò1.9billion ¼èÆÀ¡¿Çã¼ý of credit card ²ñ¼Ò¡¿·ø¤¤ MBNA earlier this year had ¾å¤²¤ëd Íø¤¶¤äs.

A Santander ¹­ÊóôÅö¼Ô said it ºï¸º¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë mortgages more ÀѶËÀ­ than Ãù¶â when the bank Ψ went É餫¤¹¡¿·âÄƤ¹¤ë, meaning its Íø¤¶¤ä was ºÇ½é squeezed.

He said: ¡ ÆOur ²þÎÉs to banking ÂáÊ᤹¤ë Íø±×¡¿¶½Ì£ Íø¤¶¤ä have occurred ¤Þ¤ºÂè°ì¤Ë¡¿ËÜÍè as we made changes to the Santander 123 account in light of Íî¤Á¤ëing Ãù¶â Ψs across the »º¶È over the past few years.¡Ç

The comments below have not been ²º·ò¤Êd.

The ¸«²ò¡Ê¤ò¤È¤ë¡Ës ɽÌÀ¤¹¤ëd in the contents above are those of our »ÈÍѼÔs and do not ¤ä¤à¤òÆÀ¤º È¿±Ç¤¹¤ë the ¸«²ò¡Ê¤ò¤È¤ë¡Ës of MailOnline.

We are no longer ¼õÂ÷¤¹¤ëing comments on this article.