fixed mortgages should banks gain from their sub-prime fiasco

kingstreet

Mortgage_Mark wrote: »

Unless I've missed something over the past four, admittedly very interesting, pages

Can I recommend you go into user settings and choose the 40 posts per page option?

AndyT678

jonesoswestry wrote: »

Back in the room, I nearly missed your thread.

You analogy fails to see this would be an act of god and not an act incompetence.

But suppose this God person has been instructed to maintain nothing but clement weather during the period then it can only be incompence or mailice.

Do you now insist that the bookie allows you to change your bet?

jonesoswestry

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

What? So if you were offered odds of 100/1 on a roll of a fair die landing on 6 you wouldn't take it? [Or, at least, no more likely to take it than if the odds were 2/1?]

I wouldn't let 100/1 make me believe it had more chance than the numbers

jonesoswestry

zizouzidane11 wrote: »

If you say so. Please tell me how you come to this conclusion? and how much do you know about me after one sentence of disagreement with your thought process on the matter!

If you succeed in your complaint, then please share. My bank have also been implicated in the credit crunch saga and I may have a few cases against them then:
- Very low interest rates on my savings, my savings were doing much better before.
- Credit crunch meant my pay rises have failed to keep up with inflation and hence lower quality of life.
And many other issues other people have encountered I'm sure. Listen, we, as a collective, all have grievances and feel an injustice with the way some in the financial world have acted, and how their wrongdoings brought the whole system to almost collapse, and hence pain and suffering to many. But I genuinely feel that your argument if flawed and that you are comparing apples and oranges.
Good luck to you anyway.

Thank you for a fair summary the only difference with the poor savings rates available is that you have other options available and are not tied in.
All the other things you add are true??
If you'd have said this in your orig OP I would have known your thoughts

JimmyTheWig

jonesoswestry wrote: »

I wouldn't let 100/1 make me believe it had more chance than the numbers

Doesn't make it any more likely.
But it does make it worth betting on.

jonesoswestry

AndyT678 wrote: »

But suppose this God person has been instructed to maintain nothing but clement weather during the period then it can only be incompence or mailice.

Do you now insist that the bookie allows you to change your bet?

Incompetence I would say if I was a religious man.

If the bookie had stopped my horse and therefore created a situation I could no have foreseen then absolutely YES.
If not then at least a free bet and no penalty to make it.

jonesoswestry

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Doesn't make it any more likely.
But it does make it worth betting on.

From experience I would have to check the dice wasn't loaded

donttrustfinancialadvisor

i have read through all the threads you have explained and I can 100% see where you are coming from.
I dont know that the Woolwich would have been aware of what was about to happen but I find a 3 year fix on higher than a 10 year fix very strange. Why do people think they cant predict if that is exactly what they did manage to do.
You were correct to have issue with broken record fool as he had only posted one thread.
I could be wrong but I was fairly sure that we had our endowment set up by a mortgage adviser who obtained commission but nobody else has jumped to tin foil hat mans aid on this this.
The fact that the majority of the people who have stated there opinion are the very people who have been at the centre of this farce should not deter you from your complaint.
You are right the majority of these so called experts deserve rude comments as they are quite happy to issue them.

jonesoswestry

donttrustfinancialadvisor wrote: »

i have read through all the threads you have explained and I can 100% see where you are coming from.
I dont know that the Woolwich would have been aware of what was about to happen but I find a 3 year fix on higher than a 10 year fix very strange. Why do people think they cant predict if that is exactly what they did manage to do.
You were correct to have issue with broken record fool as he had only posted one thread.
I could be wrong but I was fairly sure that we had our endowment set up by a mortgage adviser who obtained commission but nobody else has jumped to tin foil hat mans aid on this this.
The fact that the majority of the people who have stated there opinion are the very people who have been at the centre of this farce should not deter you from your complaint.
You are right the majority of these so called experts deserve rude comments as they are quite happy to issue them.

Thanks for the post but I expect you'll get the same level of abuse as I did off 'tinfoilhat' man but just as well broken record guy has left the building

donttrustfinancialadvisor

BillJones wrote: »

Precisely. Plus, of course, he'd need to assume that the bookmaker knew that the rain was coming, but offered "teaser" odds on a horse that he knew would suffer in the wet.

I wonder if this guvnor really works in the financial trade? Iguess he is rude enough to