Why are u upset with lenders that don't pass rate cuts on?

Conrad

Of course some lenders seek to safeguard the needs of thier savers, some of whom rely to a great extent on income from savings accounts. Lenders cannot pass on rate cuts without causing old ladies extreme income reductions.

To make sense of any debate one must remain impartial and objective. Children tend to see things from a narrow view point, but surely all adults have the ability to stretch thier brains a little, so as to see all sides of an argument.

C'mon people, time to streeetch the brains a little:rotfl:

beecher

Because we're in the Anger phase - people who realise they're in negative equity and that their home isn't the cash cow they hoped it would be are now angry. Easier to be angry with the banks and blame them than realise they've made a big mistake in buying at the top. Wait til rates go up!

Wutang_2

A lot of the ethics of this particular site encourages cash back, reclaiming fees, switching insurers, money saving incentives etc which ultimately leads many to believe every company is stitching them up.
Apparently one always needs to be on guard and always prepared to change (eg the thread started by MSE regarding paying ERCs and going on to a new tracker/fised rate).
If Martin says "PASS ON THE RATE CUTS" then so will many many others because Martin said it...

Sportbilly_2

There's also the big bailouts that some banks have received and the massive insurance schemes. I guess people just expect to get better deals as they are in effect paying to keep the banks afloat.

Hillfly

The whole idea behind the rate cuts it to stimulate the economy for the good of the nation. By not passing on the rate cuts the cash will not be available to spend. This effectively penalises everyone as the downturn will be more prolonged.
It is arguably the banks and building societies who are being narrow minded by simply looking to protect themselves.This is exactly the same principal most individuals use when arguing for a rate cut - they want themselves to 'benefit'.
These are the results of a capitalist/market economy. Everyman for themselves. It's a bit like a giant game of the prisoners dilemma.

suzyp1982

because they are passing on the rate cut to my savings!!!!

System

I think a lot of the anger is directed at the sadistic little idiots who are taking great delight in saying "I told you so" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

The majority of people don't care what their house is worth, all they want is a fair deal from their lender. The anger is with the big discrepancies between lenders. Previously when there was no financial crisis the lenders rates and deals were all remarkably similar and could basically be divided into 2, normal and sub-prime. Now the lenders rates are all massively different and THAT'S why people are angry if they get stuck with an expensive one.

It's no coincendence that the sadistic idiots are the ones who consider property an investment, as have no idea what genuine HOME owners feel.

Peelerfart

Perhaps some people believe that banks are there to provide a service and to be helpful to their customers ?. Niave, I accept but nonetheless possible !

michaels

1) Because HSBC have passed on the rate cuts in full with immediate effect to their savers (where the rates were high enough to allow this - I guess they probably havn't cut the 0.1% they used to pay on current accounts by very much).
2) Because HSBC made a virtue in the past that their SVR was the most competitive of the big 4 banks and that it was their policy to keep it that way
3) Because other lenders like Nationwide and LTSB have passed on the rate cuts to their svr borrowers - limiting access to these rates to existing cutomers; in other words showing loyalty to their customers rather than making their best deals available to 'new customers only'

Conrad wrote: »

Of course some lenders seek to safeguard the needs of thier savers, some of whom rely to a great extent on income from savings accounts. Lenders cannot pass on rate cuts without causing old ladies extreme income reductions.

To make sense of any debate one must remain impartial and objective. Children tend to see things from a narrow view point, but surely all adults have the ability to stretch thier brains a little, so as to see all sides of an argument.

C'mon people, time to streeetch the brains a little:rotfl:

ILW

Peelerfart wrote: »

Perhaps some people believe that banks are there to provide a service and to be helpful to their customers ?. Niave, I accept but nonetheless possible !

Wrong, any companies first duty is shareholder returns (that is the law) if by providing a service and helping customers this this can increase shareholder value then all well and good. If there is more to be made by offering lousy service and say keeping costs to a minimum, that is what they will do. As a customer you always have the option of taking your business elsewhere. As a shareholder you have the option of getting rid of your shares. Its calles capitalism.

koexelek

From a broker point of view, I'm happy for lenders keeping their SVR's high.

Gives me a better chance to remortgage people elsewhere to get them a better deal :cool: