Cattles shed 1000 employee's jobs

Usury_up_and_wear_it_out

robin_banks wrote: »

They were high rates but they lent to high risk clients, whose chance of defaulting is much higher than someone who'd go to a high street bank for example.

Ironic isn't it, if the rates were even close to the high street lenders it's poorer clients would probably have not defaulted in the first place, the rates of Welcomes doorstep lenders are up near 70% apr.

(Personal loans: Typical 69.6% APR Variable) VARIABLE !!!!!!!!

I am convinced sub prime borrowers do not exist, sub prime lenders however do.

I have no problem with these miserable loan sharks closing down, again, good riddance to bad rubbish.

What's wrong with fairness and small profits?

robin_banks

Usury_up_and_wear_it_out wrote: »

Ironic isn't it, if the rates were even close to the high street lenders it's poorer clients would probably have not defaulted in the first place, the rates of Welcomes doorstep lenders are up near 70% apr.

(Personal loans: Typical 69.6% APR Variable) VARIABLE !!!!!!!!

I am convinced sub prime borrowers do not exist, sub prime lenders however do.

I have no problem with these miserable loan sharks closing down, again, good riddance to bad rubbish.

What's wrong with fairness and small profits?

In all honesty many of their borrowers would have borrowed from mainstream lenders in the first instance and for whatever reason defaulted, needed to borrow more money and could only do so at a higher rate to reflect the risk.

The thing with debt it can suffocate you and they would have better off not taking out the loan in the first instance, in many cases these high rate loans would be rendered unneccessary if the borrower had spoken to a CAB or other such organisation in the first place.

Credit-Crunched

Usury_up_and_wear_it_out wrote: »

Ironic isn't it, if the rates were even close to the high street lenders it's poorer clients would probably have not defaulted in the first place, the rates of Welcomes doorstep lenders are up near 70% apr.

(Personal loans: Typical 69.6% APR Variable) VARIABLE !!!!!!!!

I am convinced sub prime borrowers do not exist, sub prime lenders however do.

I have no problem with these miserable loan sharks closing down, again, good riddance to bad rubbish.

What's wrong with fairness and small profits?

Its all about risk, if people have not been ablve to control their finances in the past then why should they get a good rate?

I have never missed a payment on a mortgage or cc, however due to people doing so my rates have gone up. If people had a good credit history then they would not need a Welcome loan, so the people who do have them, have them for a reason.

People need to start taking account for their responsibilites instead of just 'writing' off debt. They benefited from it in the first place so why whould i and other honest borrowers suffer?

_Andy_

Usury_up_and_wear_it_out wrote: »

I am convinced sub prime borrowers do not exist, sub prime lenders however do.

So how would you describe someone with, say, 3 missed mortgage payments, defaults, and a big CCJ?
Would you, if you were a lender, feel they were the same risk as someone with an impeccable credit history?
Would you want to lend on the same rates?

robin_banks

That individual should not become a borrower, the missed payments indicate an ability to repay reliably.

petermb_2

Credit-Crunched wrote: »

Its all about risk, if people have not been ablve to control their finances in the past then why should they get a good rate?

I have never missed a payment on a mortgage or cc, however due to people doing so my rates have gone up. If people had a good credit history then they would not need a Welcome loan, so the people who do have them, have them for a reason.

People need to start taking account for their responsibilites instead of just 'writing' off debt. They benefited from it in the first place so why whould i and other honest borrowers suffer?

The point is, why should you pay more? It is not that the institutions have not made huge profits.. They have. Many of them have huge contingency funds to cover the costs of claims they are likely to pay out on. Why not take the hit and reduce profit levels instead of trying to maintain those high profit levels by passing these additional costs on to borrowers. Afterall it is the lenders inability to run their own house that has created the claims against them in the first place.

It is easy to blame borrowers for trying to write off debts but the lenders have left themselves wide open by being arrogant, greedy and sloppy.

If the lenders did their job right there would be no claims.

There again, you are stating that it is ok for the lenders to be guilty of bribery and fraud and get away with it.

CHR15

My problem with Welcome, which is solely from the posts on this board, is that they specifically target percisely those who are likely to default on repayments.

They do not compete with mainstream lenders due to their hugely inflated interest rates. The whole infrastructure is built upon lending to those who need help to get OUT of debt, but they assist in getting them further INTO debt.

There are many jobs which I consider unethical, loan sharks, bailiffs, car clampers and the like.

I have no issues with welcoming the downsizing of operations much as I have no issues with seeing Clamping companies going to the wall, even if it does mean people losing Jobs (would people defend a car clamper getting closed down? the poor souls are losing their income after all!!).

Some jobs simply shouldn't exist in the first place.

Usury_up_and_wear_it_out

CHR15 wrote: »

Some jobs simply shouldn't exist in the first place.

My sentiments Exactly

bigstevex

WOW, i never knew they had nearly 1million customers, thats crazy!