MSE News: Bank of Ireland to raise mortgage SVR

shortchanged_2

darlodave wrote: »

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.

I agree that the banks should have been allowed to go bust, even if nothing else we would learn something for future generations.

The system is very messed up. You can't have free markets and deregulation on one hand and then a safety net on the other hand if it all goes t*ts up. All that does is promote reckless practice as there are no consequences for poor decisions.

But we are where we are now, so that doesn't mean that people should not also have some personal responsibilty for their own actions. Don't get me wrong I do feel for people who have their lost jobs etc as often people cannot plan for this. However I'm afraid a great deal of the problems we have now are due to people living beyond their means for too long, be it having expensive holidays, new cars, houses they can't really afford etc etc.

The_J

moneymagnet wrote: »

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?

No, you were wrong (bold).

ILW

shortchanged wrote: »

I agree that the banks should have been allowed to go bust, even if nothing else we would learn something for future generations.

The system is very messed up. You can't have free markets and deregulation on one hand and then a safety net on the other hand if it all goes t*ts up. All that does is promote reckless practice as there are no consequences for poor decisions.

But we are where we are now, so that doesn't mean that people should not also have some personal responsibilty for their own actions. Don't get me wrong I do feel for people who have their lost jobs etc as often people cannot plan for this. However I'm afraid a great deal of the problems we have now are due to people living beyond their means for too long, be it having expensive holidays, new cars, houses they can't really afford etc etc.

When you say the banks should have been allowed to collapse, what do you mean by "the banks"?

They are owned primarily by pension funds etc, would seeing them written off be a good thing?

shortchanged_2

ILW wrote: »

When you say the banks should have been allowed to collapse, what do you mean by "the banks"?

They are owned primarily by pension funds etc, would seeing them written off be a good thing?

No it wouldn't but where are we now. The way things are there is going to be pain for some people, there always is.
Like now, some people are saying they've never had it so good and others are on the bones of their ar*es.

My fear is that by not letting the banks go bust they will not learn from this and once conditions do start to improve we'll see a return to the good ol ways.

moneymagnet_2

The_J wrote: »

No, you were wrong (bold).

Then surely my IFA should have made me aware? Clutching at straws here!

ILW

shortchanged wrote: »

No it wouldn't but where are we now. The way things are there is going to be pain for some people, there always is.
Like now, some people are saying they've never had it so good and others are on the bones of their ar*es.

My fear is that by not letting the banks go bust they will not learn from this and once conditions do start to improve we'll see a return to the good ol ways.

Again I ask, what is your definition of "the banks"?

Do you mean the owners, the directors, the depositors?

The ones that would suffer from a collapse would not be the ones that caused it, but millions of totally innocent people who had no control over what happened.

opinions4u

My fear is that by not letting the banks go bust they will not learn from
this and once conditions do start to improve we'll see a return to the good ol ways.

I think shareholders losing 98%+ of the value of their investments is one hell of a lesson to learn.

Does a 98% loss or total wipeout make much difference?

Let's face it, Bradford & Bingley was allowed to die. Northern Rock was nationalised to save it from death so the owners lost 100% there.

The banks weren't "saved". The ownership, or part ownership was transferred. Rightly so.

darlodave

shortchanged wrote: »

I agree that the banks should have been allowed to go bust, even if nothing else we would learn something for future generations.

The system is very messed up. You can't have free markets and deregulation on one hand and then a safety net on the other hand if it all goes t*ts up. All that does is promote reckless practice as there are no consequences for poor decisions.

But we are where we are now, so that doesn't mean that people should not also have some personal responsibilty for their own actions. Don't get me wrong I do feel for people who have their lost jobs etc as often people cannot plan for this. However I'm afraid a great deal of the problems we have now are due to people living beyond their means for too long, be it having expensive holidays, new cars, houses they can't really afford etc etc.

You state your case in a rational and caring way. I agree with all these points. I personally have lived beyond my means for far too long and don't blame anybody else for that. However, rules that pertain to small businesses/ individuals but not to large corporations trouble me greatly as one is then adopting an arbitrary view of moral hazard. In fact it is patently hypocritical.

darlodave

ILW wrote: »

When you say the banks should have been allowed to collapse, what do you mean by "the banks"?

They are owned primarily by pension funds etc, would seeing them written off be a good thing?

Nationalised banks subsidised by my taxes.

darlodave

opinions4u wrote: »

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.

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

Fair enough