Banks still not lending to business'

Thrugelmir

[quote=[Deleted User];43886676]So why did they do it several times before then. Could it be you're talking bollox again?[/QUOTE]

Seems as if finally got to the root cause of your frustration. You have a personal grudge. If anyone disagrees with your viewpoint you get upset and go out of your way to be rude and aggressive.

Do you speak to your lenders in the same manner?

Pennywise

ILW wrote: »

They will not call in safe profitable loans, it is not in their interest.

If their security is impaired though the property value falls of recent years, yes, they will call in profitable facilities as they'll no longer meet the security/risk criteria.

ILW

Pennywise wrote: »

If their security is impaired though the property value falls of recent years, yes, they will call in profitable facilities as they'll no longer meet the security/risk criteria.

It did say "safe" and profitable.

bendix

[quote=[Deleted User];43885540]
I have first hand experience of their reluctance to lend. I actually had the cash to buy a property outright but they came out with several excuses before settling on 'we think you have too much on your plate'. I had already committed to buy it at auction so it was fortunate I could afford it without a loan. The business manager privately admitted they were just not lending at the time (late 2008).[/QUOTE]


Let me get this right. You're criticising a bank for not lending you money that to buy a property that you could pay for outright with cash, at a time when the credit crunch was at its most severe, and you're using that instance to judge banks' behaviour nearly three years later?

OF COURSE they weren't lending at the time. What does that have to do with a debate about lending practices now?

Honestly, i despair of people's reasoning ability, I really do.

Thrugelmir

Pennywise wrote: »

Trouble is that the decision makers don't understand business. For example, they fail to appreciate that goodwill has an inherent value because they can't see it.

Goodwill has no value when you get down to the hard business of liquidating a Company's assets.

Pennywise

ILW wrote: »

They have figured out that "goodwill" can evaporate overnight, especially in small businesses and do not want to take the risk.

So why do they lend millions for management buy outs of the big firms then where the massive valuations can be ridiculous multiples of profits and where there is little, if any, bricks & mortar as properties are rented (i.e. shop chains). The report shows that banks are continuing to lend to big firms. I think history has shown that the goodwill in big retail chains, banks, industry, etc., is just as likely to evaporate overnight (Woolworths, Waterstones, Barclays, BP) than it is in smaller firms.

Banks always managed to deal with the inherent risk by taking a close interest in the businesses, i.e. through debenture cards where the business was forced to produce monthly or quarterly figures to show that it was performing. Where's all that gone? The answer is that today's Mickey Mouse "managers" wouldn't know which way up to read the debenture card figures let alone understand them. If banks aren't going to lend on goodwill, then the Govt needs to pretty sharpish set up a new small company stock exchange where small companies can get equity investment or private loans instead.

[Deleted User]

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Seems as if finally got to the root cause of your frustration. You have a personal grudge. If anyone disagrees with your viewpoint you get upset and go out of your way to be rude and aggressive.

Do you speak to your lenders in the same manner?

I haven't been a victim of theirs, I just don't like what I see and their repeated lies which are now more than two years old.

My and many other's hatred for the people who work in the banks is totally justified. I really don't care if I offend the sensitivities of their apologists who invariably turn out to work for them.

Pennywise

ILW wrote: »

It did say "safe" and profitable.

So why don't they call in the mortages of homeowners who, although they have paid their repayments on time, no longer have the same level of equity in their homes (or even negative equity) when house prices fall. It's exactly the same scenario. Completely illogical.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Goodwill has no value when you get down to the hard business of liquidating a Company's assets.

That goes without saying but banks are happy to lend based on goodwill to big firms. If banks won't lend, and the AIM/stock exchange is for big firms only, just who is going to provide small firms with the funds they need to expand?

Thrugelmir

[quote=[Deleted User];43887454]
My and many other's hatred for the people who work in the banks is totally justified. I really don't care if I offend the sensitivities of their apologists who invariably turn out to work for them.[/QUOTE]

Never worked for a bank.

However I have shown customers the door if their simply to much hassle to deal with.

[Deleted User]

Pennywise wrote: »

So why don't they call in the mortages of homeowners who, although they have paid their repayments on time, no longer have the same level of equity in their homes (or even negative equity) when house prices fall. It's exactly the same scenario. Completely illogical.

They have more rights, and it would be politically unacceptable.