Banks have NO excuse for not cutting rates

LandlordLee

Banks have no excuse for dodging rate cuts. They are the ones that set the Libor rate..

Click on the link below - great read

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=456838&in_page_id=2

minimike2

God forbid a company wants to make a profit!

Mortgage rates are LOW anyway, its just that everyone wants something for nothing.

Has your £1300 a month extra "profit" given you more time to spend slating the very banks that are propping up your little empire?

wymondham

LandlordLee wrote: »

Banks have no excuse for dodging rate cuts. They are the ones that set the Libor rate..

Click on the link below - great read

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=456838&in_page_id=2

Sorry, but a bank is a business first and foremost. Despite what Gordon keeps telling them, their number one aim is to make profit - they have no social responsibility whatsoever, and are under no obligation to reduce their rates.

econo_2

wymondham wrote: »

Sorry, but a bank is a business first and foremost. Despite what Gordon keeps telling them, their number one aim is to make profit - they have no social responsibility whatsoever, and are under no obligation to reduce their rates.

That was all very well before most were bailed out from bankruptcy by the tax payer. Now the government has a say and we have a share I don't think they'll be many that share your view! They can msake a profit where sound ethics are part of the business plan. Remember that?

If a little more responsibility and ethical practice had been in place the last 20 years or so the world financial system wouldn't now be on life support. Gordon may even shift his alarming pole numbers a few points with mandatory legislation that ensures they HAVE to pass it on.

With the investigations and committees ongoing into this fiasco and public outrage at these types of practices growing daily, it might just happen too.

roddydogs

Why didnt you take out a "Tracker" mortgage if you wanted a guarantee of reduction?

Bernard_Coleslaw

econo wrote: »

That was all very well before most were bailed out from bankruptcy by the tax payer.

Enough of this use of the term 'bailing out' please. The tax payer, through the government, has bought fairly sizeable chunks of these banks. We have assets in return. Although the media seems to like to imply the case, the taxpayer hasn't just written an open cheque.

And anyway, in many cases the money hasn't actually reached the banks yet.

Now the government has a say and we have a share I don't think they'll be many that share your view! They can msake a profit where sound ethics are part of the business plan. Remember that?

So now you (and all of us) own part of these banks, you'd be quite happy for them to be run so that they make a loss? Interesting....

If a little more responsibility and ethical practice had been in place the last 20 years or so the world financial system wouldn't now be on life support.

Don't think you'll find anyone that'll disagree with you there.

Gordon may even shift his alarming pole numbers a few points with mandatory legislation that ensures they HAVE to pass it on.

Let me give you an example. I like bananas. However, Sainsburys have not reduced the price of bananas, despite the Bank Base Rate cut. Sainsburys say that the cost of bananas is not actually linked the Bank Base Rate. This is outrageous. The Government must do something.

See how odd that sounds? Replace 'bananas' with 'mortgages' and 'Sainsburys' with 'mortgage lenders'.

With the investigations and committees ongoing into this fiasco and public outrage at these types of practices growing daily, it might just happen too.

With six savers to every borrower I can see an outrage coming from another source pretty soon. In fact, the tone of more recent press coverage seems to be reflecting this.

Daily Express on Thursday last week - "Pass on the cut!"
Daily Express on Saturday last week - "Play fair to savers!"

Mr Cause, meet Mr Effect, I'm sure you have a lot to talk about....

LandlordLee

Minimike - I think yes you are right, last year that is.

If the taxpayer has to prop them up we should see the benefits. People hate banks for a good reason. I don't see how people can defend them? They could have potentially sent this whole country into chaos . Could you imagine if the government did not step in? Do you think you would still have a job? We would be back in the dark ages. Just think about that for a min.. What would have the country been like?

Yes they do have to make a profit which i understand, but they nearly folded. And what profit is reasonable? Do you call keeping rates high to maintain similar profits as previous years reasonable? Its not going to happen..

If they do not pass on rate cuts they will suffer more in the long run believe you me. They were given this information at the meeting with Mr Darling.

LandlordLee

And i slate banks for a good reason, i used to work for one and left because i could not cope with the mis selling to customers. Think about the reports you have heard and multiply this by 100. It was awful.

We got a bonus for selling everything.. We were rewarded for selling with no questions as to if the customer actually needed it.

I remember this one examle where i was boll*cked for not offering a woman a new loan which increased her original loan by £2k on a higher interest rate. She wanted this and the computer automatically generated what she could have.. She was on bloody benefits so i refused.

minimike2

You think interest rates are currently high, Lee?

MORTGAGE RATES ARE NOT HIGH.

There, that should clear that one up. lol. Mortgage rates are still pretty low, its just that people want everything ultra cheap. The only reason we saw average mortgage rates at 3%-5% was because of the very financial tools that caused the whole global problem in the first place......so people are moaning about whats happened, but thats the reason people had low rates in the first place......the debt was easy to sell on, so easy to arrange and throw at people. Borrowing money aint free.....its STILL bloody cheap in this country, so people should wake up and realise it. The problem now is the banks dont know who to lend to that will pay it back, not the rates they are lending it at.

econo_2

Bernard, could you please tell me out of interest what is considered a saver in your quoted post on a 6:1 ratio? Is a 1 pound deposit considered being a saver for example?

Thanks

Econo

koexelek

LandlordLee wrote: »

And i slate banks for a good reason, i used to work for one and left because i could not cope with the mis selling to customers. Think about the reports you have heard and multiply this by 100. It was awful.

We got a bonus for selling everything.. We were rewarded for selling with no questions as to if the customer actually needed it.

I remember this one examle where i was boll*cked for not offering a woman a new loan which increased her original loan by £2k on a higher interest rate. She wanted this and the computer automatically generated what she could have.. She was on bloody benefits so i refused.

I know this is true. I worked for a bank in the late 80's and early 90's and I know this sort of thing went on.
I was on a straight basic though, and did not get a bonus on what I sold. It was the only way I could sleep at night, to think I was not personally benefitting from the scams.

Some of the scams :

1) Forcing people to take out additional insurance products if they wanted loans
2) Forcing people to take insurance policies they were not eligible to claim on
3) Increasing people's charges above the agreed tarriff ( *)
4) Getting people to invest in the funds that were " a bit low" regardeless of their risk profile.

(*) I'll never foreget the fax from the area manager, telling us to do this. We were told that if anyone read the small print and challenged the charges, we had to apologise, refund them the difference and blame it on the computer.... but most of the customers would be " too stupid to notice ":eek:

If you refused to do these things, you were threatened with a transfer to a branch about 100 miles away, or you would be made to sit in the bank until 9pm at night as a punishment.

I'm not tarring all banks with the same brush, but the public put far too much trust in their banks.

The bank did pay for me to pass all my FPC exams though, but as soon as I had them I left, doubled my salary overnight and started to treat customers with the respect they deserved.