MSE News: Bank of Ireland to raise mortgage SVR

The_J

The public sector have no-one to blame but Labour and their Unions. Think of the public sector as a dog, Labour is the owner of the dog and the Unions as the dog's stomach. Labour likes the dog very much, the dog gives them lots of love and feelings of power so Labour feeds the dog, the dog likes food very much, it's stomach says more more more. Labour hasn't got much food so it sells it's gold jewelry for a cut price and buys lots of food. It keeps feeding the dog lots and lots of food, by this point the dog is getting pretty fat, it can't really move or tell when it's hungry, it's brain says "Go on a diet" but it's stomach rules the day and keeps asking for more food. Labour really has no food left so it tells the dog "sorry, no feed", the stomach makes the dog bite Labour's hand.

At this point Labour's friend (let's call them Jeremy Tory) says, you should put the dog down, your one is dangerous. Get a new, smaller, thinner dog. Mr Labour knew better and said, lets just borrow money from the bank to feed our dog, we can pay it back in the future and the dog is hungry. It gets to the point that the dog is so fat, so bloated that it is costing Mr Labour everything and the bank is saying "We can't lend you any more money". This made Mr Labour very sad and he spiraled into depression and schizophrenia. Mr Jeremy Tory was bought in to manage his estate and the first thing he did was put the dog on a slow diet. The stomach is not very happy about this and has threatened to starve the dog to death...

To be continued.

ILW

darlodave wrote: »

They are indeed doing something wrong. The rate rise is well out of kilter with the Base rate which is deeply suspicious for a start. Don't believe some of the posts on here as many of these will have vested interested in seeing their deposit accounts rate rise or have a financial interest in waiting for a list of repossessed homes to come on the market. Capitalists will always defend capitalism usually quoting 'efficient markets hypothesis' when we all know the market is dictated by irrationality. If people like you don't complain they will continue to do what they want. The only lever we have is to
create bad publicity.

Sorry, but anyone who did not budget for around 8% when they took out a mortgage, was acting irresponsibly. It had to happen at some point.

shortchanged_2

moneymagnet wrote: »

I would like to complain, but it looks as if there is no justification, as they are not doing anything wrong according the the posts on here. I don't think I am emotionally strong enough to go through a complaint and get my hopes up, if my complaint is not going to be considered. By the way I think there are some very insensitive, (arrogant?) people posting on this forum at the moment. Some of us are only just hanging on by a thread at the moment and to have a 50% increase thrust on us is devastating.

I'm afraid this just shows the naivety of many people.

Unless the SVR was specifically tied to the BoE base rate then people should not have expected the banks to do things in the customers interests. Bottom line is they are businesses and are there to make money. If there is an opportunity for them to make more money then chances are they will.

I know if I had a mortgage that went onto a non base rate tied SVR I would have looked to get off it ASAP simply because of the fact there would be no guarantees as to what they would do with their rates.

This is the problem now though that people have simply just got too used to these very low rates. It does look like a very tough time ahead for many people over the coming years.

darlodave

The_J wrote: »

The public sector have no-one to blame but Labour and their Unions. Think of the public sector as a dog, Labour is the owner of the dog and the Unions as the dog's stomach. Labour likes the dog very much, the dog gives them lots of love and feelings of power so Labour feeds the dog, the dog likes food very much, it's stomach says more more more. Labour hasn't got much food so it sells it's gold jewelry for a cut price and buys lots of food. It keeps feeding the dog lots and lots of food, by this point the dog is getting pretty fat, it can't really move or tell when it's hungry, it's brain says "Go on a diet" but it's stomach rules the day and keeps asking for more food. Labour really has no food left so it tells the dog "sorry, no feed", the stomach makes the dog bite Labour's hand.

At this point Labour's friend (let's call them Jeremy Tory) says, you should put the dog down, your one is dangerous. Get a new, smaller, thinner dog. Mr Labour knew better and said, lets just borrow money from the bank to feed our dog, we can pay it back in the future and the dog is hungry. It gets to the point that the dog is so fat, so bloated that it is costing Mr Labour everything and the bank is saying "We can't lend you any more money". This made Mr Labour very sad and he spiraled into depression and schizophrenia. Mr Jeremy Tory was bought in to manage his estate and the first thing he did was put the dog on a slow diet. The stomach is not very happy about this and has threatened to starve the dog to death...

To be continued.

Interesting article and I don't disagree with you about the waste in the public sector. However, you fail to mention the big dogs "the banks" who really should have been allowed to go under if you truly believe in market economics and moral hazard. Any chance I could reclaim my portion of tax that is subsidising these beasts.

opinions4u

darlodave wrote: »

They are indeed doing something wrong. The rate rise is well out of kilter with the Base rate which is deeply suspicious for a start.

The reason for that is that due to a poor business decision many years ago the rate was artificially linked to BofE base rate. That artificial link had a timeframe which has now expired.

Don't believe some of the posts on here as many of these will have vested interested in seeing their deposit accounts rate rise or have a financial interest in waiting for a list of repossessed homes to come on the market.

Utter tosh. The posts in question simply understand that when you agree to a variable rate you run the risk of that rate being varied.

Capitalists will always defend capitalism usually quoting 'efficient markets hypothesis' when we all know the market is dictated by irrationality. If people like you don't complain they will continue to do what they want. The only lever we have is to
create bad publicity.

Complain away. Moan. Sink in to depression. Whatever. It's not going to make any difference. Much better to look to move the mortgage elsewhere or adjust the household budget now.

Sensible actions to mitigate rather than irrational whaling at something that cannot be controlled.

you fail to mention the big dogs "the banks" who really should have been allowed to go under if you truly believe in market economics and moral hazard. Any chance I could reclaim my portion of tax that is subsidising these beasts

Give it a year or two (or maybe four or five) and the taxpayer will have made a paper profit.

darlodave

shortchanged wrote: »

I'm afraid this just shows the naivety of many people.

Bottom line is they are businesses and are there to make money. If there is an opportunity for them to make more money then chances are they will.

Some very good points but you can't have it both ways. If they are businesses then they should be allowed to go bust like any other business. That is the essence of moral hazard. Some of these rate hiking "businesses" are being bailed out by the taxpayer.

I'm pretty sure that the rate rises almost guarantee a double dip recession, sadly.

darlodave

opinions4u wrote: »

Give it a year or two (or maybe four or five) and the taxpayer will have made a paper profit.

I don't want to wait 4/5 years thank you very much and it is big assumption. Why should I be forced to invest in these useless enterprises? It is an opportunity cost for me. I could be spending that money elsewhere.

moneymagnet_2

My original loan was with Bristol & West and I received a letter stating that when BOI took over there would be no change to the t&C. My T&C say that after the fixed term expires (it already has) then my payments could go up if the interest rates change. I took this to mean BOE interest rates. Surely this is misleading? Can I complain on these grounds?

The_J

darlodave wrote: »

Interesting article and I don't disagree with you about the waste in the public sector. However, you fail to mention the big dogs "the banks" who really should have been allowed to go bust under if you truly believe in market economics and moral hazard.

100% agree the banks should be allowed to go bust and, as you can see, I would love to bash Labour for that as well but they had to be bailed out. They were too big to fail.

The country could have survived a Northern Rock collapse if it was an isolated incident, I mean it would have destroyed the North and turned large parts of it into a Detroit like wasteland but the South would have survived. But not Halifax and not RBS and certainly not both together. Both together would have bought down the entire global financial system and society would have followed. Lenders like Barclays, HSBC and Lloyds (pre Halifax takeover) who didn't need taxpayer support would have collapsed.

It would have been biblical, the army would have been bought in to maintain order. Part of me was a bit tempted to see what it would be like, I'm self sufficient and have trained with guns so I reckon I could look after myself pretty well.

opinions4u

darlodave wrote: »

You are making a basic assumption that the person could afford to pay off more. Aren't you aware of pay freezes, enhanced pension contriobutions and rising fuel bills. Not everybody is on big incomes and shelter is a basic good, isn't it?

Well aware of it thank you.

But if they can't afford it at 4.49% they were well and truly stuffed at 7%+, weren't they.

Not trying to be smug, but if the economic crisis had been handled in a different way, without low interest rates, these people would clearly have been repossessed months ago.

The 350 "up" has probably been eaten up by other costs so not a net saving. I think rich people on this forum need to be careful about lecturing low income people about elementary economics.

If only I was a rich person. Jobseekers allowance doesn't go quite as far as a frozen salary.