# ICB & The Recession



## Nationaldude (28 Apr 2010)

With all the negative equity/redundancies/unemployment, basically people getting into financial difficulties through no fault of their own, do you think the ICB or/and the banks, should/could relax the rules a little in the future for people trying to put their finances back in order?

With so many people finding themselves in difficulties and not being able to protect their credit ratings I think it would be only fair to give people a chance to get back on their feet in time to come.


----------



## jhegarty (28 Apr 2010)

Wasn't it relaxed credit standards what caused all these problems ?


----------



## Nationaldude (28 Apr 2010)

True it played a part, but maybe rather than holding a bad credit rating for 5/7 years, this could be reduced by a year or two?

Of course there still has to be a minimum credit criteria for all but I just think that in time to come the majority of people affected by the Global downturn will not be able to avail of any credit for a long time, which seems a little unfair.

Just my opinion.


----------



## jhegarty (28 Apr 2010)

I do agree there should be a shorter period for 1/2 missed payments.

Something like a year for every consecutive missed payment up to 5 payments.


----------



## Chris (28 Apr 2010)

As jhegarty already mentioned, this is exactly what caused the credit/debt crisis, if anything the ICB rules should be more stringent. Some people should not be given loans; this may sound unfair, but the alternative is now evident.

Also, people are in financial difficulties because of their own doing, not through the fault of others. If you take on lots of debt you better make sure you have provisions made if your income changes. Having too much debt that cannot be repaid as soon as your income is adjusted can be blamed on noboby but the person taking on the debt.


----------



## demoivre (28 Apr 2010)

Chris said:


> As jhegarty already mentioned, this is exactly what caused the credit/debt crisis, if anything the ICB rules should be more stringent. Some people should not be given loans; this may sound unfair, but the alternative is now evident.
> 
> Also, people are in financial difficulties because of their own doing, not through the fault of others. If you take on lots of debt you better make sure you have provisions made if your income changes. Having too much debt that cannot be repaid as soon as your income is adjusted can be blamed on noboby but the person taking on the debt.



Why in a two party contract is only one side culpable  when problems arise? Or are you one of the prudent lenders of the last decade?


----------



## jhegarty (28 Apr 2010)

The banks credit has been every bit as much as borrower who missed payments.

AIB is now government controlled and paying way over the odds for it's credit. A bank has a credit history just like mine or yours.


----------



## Chris (28 Apr 2010)

demoivre said:


> Why in a two party contract is only one side culpable  when problems arise? Or are you one of the prudent lenders of the last decade?



I fully agree, banks should not have been bailed out, as they made as bad decisions as the people that over-burdened themselves with debt did. There are two parties to a loan contract and government should not become a third a party.
I am one of the prudent borrowers of the last decade, and have always had a rainy day fund and insurance that cover 12 months worth of current family living expenses should I lose my job, not accounting for the dole. If people in this country had even accumulated half that during the boom years they would not be in such trouble now.


----------

