# "Minister Noonan has not asked the banks to reduce variable rates" - Indo



## tonymac (28 Sep 2015)

I see a piece in the indo today on page 5 re the minister and the fact that in his recent meetings with the banks he failed to ask them to reduce their rates. He as before mentioned competition and switching but how can you switch if in negative equity. Roll on the election as we've been ignored and abandoned and we'll see what backlash is there. I urge anyone with an svr to vote appropriately in the election especially those in negative equity, eg anyone but FG and LAB. This is our last chance to do anything in the absence of a desire for a public protest.


----------



## Miakk (28 Sep 2015)

Tonymac, are the opposition parties even considering this as an issue???!


----------



## Clonback (28 Sep 2015)

Tony
I fully agree with your comments on Minister Noonan.In fact he thinks the  BOI offer of 2% cashback is good and promoted same on radio two weeks agbviously he thinks like BOI ----- suck them in and lock them up.It is vital that we highlight the issue,so we vote appropriately.


----------



## tonymac (28 Sep 2015)

Miakk said:


> Tonymac, are the opposition parties even considering this as an issue???!


From what I can see only Michael McGrath from the opposition parties has given the issue any serious support. We would then have to depend on him continuing his support for us if he did get into office but if I remember from the burlington meeting he did commit when asked to continue his support if elected to office. Ruth Coppinger did reply to one of my emails expressing support in the Dail. SF did reply expressing support but the promised reply from Pears Doherty never arrived. We need to keep getting in touch with them all to make sure it stays on their agenda. Re a public protest which would certainly achieve that I have previously advocated this as an action but I feel if it's not getting big support on this forum I don't see it getting it elsewhere . Too many people with svrs are sitting back doing nothing as we would need a few thousand to co-ordinate a proper campaign and I don't see the required numbers coming forward. All we have to do is look at the attendance at the burlington meeting after all the efforts the organisers made for it.


----------



## Sarenco (28 Sep 2015)

Both FF and Sinn Fein introduced private member bills to give the Central Bank the power to set and/or control mortgage rates.  The Central Bank has been pretty clear that it doesn't want this power and wouldn't exercise any such power in the current environment.

If you want to go the political route, I would suggest that you need to be far more specific as to precisely what you want to achieve.  Relying on vague promises made by any politician during an election campaign is unwise in my opinion.


----------



## tonymac (28 Sep 2015)

Agree re vague promises all right especially during an election campaign. What I want to achieve is the same as what the name of the campaign, fair mortgage rates. For me it's an svr rate of approx 2.5%, if im right the average euro area rate. Unfortunately just like the government the CB has renaged on its consumer protection role role and as nothing else seems to have worked the CB would be one of the first places for a picket the finance ministers office along with the Dail next and the HQs of the main banks. To do this though we need numbers and for me not enough people are willing to take part in a campaign,  most of the noble exceptions are on this site.


----------



## Ger Fleming (28 Sep 2015)

Pearse Doherty emailed me last week to say he has tabled a question to Minister Noonan  on the issue tomorrow  Tuesday.


----------



## tonymac (28 Sep 2015)

Good stuff, hopefully he'll give him the grilling he deserves but I won't be holding my breath. He does need to remind him about the fact that when you're in negative equity and high LTV that you can't switch or negotiate so basically you're trapped by the banks on high SVR. I'll  try emailing him about this to make sure he asks him.


----------



## Sarenco (28 Sep 2015)

tonymac said:


> What I want to achieve is the same as what the name of the campaign, fair mortgage rates. For me it's an svr rate of approx 2.5%, if im right the average euro area rate.



I think you may have misunderstood me.  Politicians don't set mortgage rates - they pass laws - so what specific law do you want them to pass?

Politicians - particularly opposition politicians - will throw whatever shapes they think will appeal to you. But what exactly do you want them to do?  Specifically, what laws do you want them to pass?  Until you decide that I really can't see how you're going to advance your cause,


----------



## tonymac (29 Sep 2015)

Correct re politicians not setting rates, the banks do. The banks have abused their right to set rates so for me legislation needs to come in to control their actions. If im right you made a suggestion in a different thread about allowing a max rate of 133% of the average tracker rate like in France. Another would be to make them justify a rate increase to the regulator with him having the right to say no if he deems it out of order, just like what's there with energy price regulation. His decision would be based on prevailing market conditions to use the words used in some mortgage contracts that the bank's decided to ignore. Agree totally that politicians have an eye on the election and will say what you want to hear. They need to be made commit to an actual policy position on this issue going into the election .

_ Mod's note: posts on Sarenco's suggestion moved here: 
*Suggestion: Cap existing rates at 125% of the new business rate*_


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 Sep 2015)

Here is an exchange from the Dáil yesterday.   

*QUESTION NO: 118
DÁIL QUESTION* addressed to the Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan)
by Deputy Michael McGrath
for *PRIORITY ANSWER* on *29/09/2015*



To ask the Minister for Finance his views that reductions in fixed mortgage rates offered by the banks represent an inadequate response to the widespread public concern over high variable rates; that it is important that all domestic banks reduce their core variable rate product offering; his plans to address high mortgage rates by the non-deposit taking retail credit (sub-prime) sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
*
REPLY.*


As the Deputy knows, I have been aware of this issue for some time and have taken steps to ensure the banks provide real options for borrowers.

To summarise actions taken to date, I requested a report from the Central Bank on the topic which was published in May. I also met with the six main mortgage lenders and outlined my view that the interest rates being charged to Irish customers was too high. 

I have recently concluded a further series of meetings with these banks and the reality is that the majority have put options in place to allow borrowers to reduce their monthly repayments.

Traditionally borrowers focused on standard variable rates but borrowers should at least consider other options. While individual borrowers must decide what suits their particular circumstances, some of the fixed rates being offered are now substantially below what the SVR rate was in May. These rates offer substantial savings to borrowers and also offer security as to monthly repayments over a specific period of time. At the end of that term, borrowers can then revert to an SVR rate if that is what they prefer. I would therefore encourage borrowers to contact their bank to see what is available to them in their particular circumstances or consider moving to another bank if the offer is not satisfactory.

I would also point out that lenders have not just reduced fixed rates. One lender significantly reduced their SVR for example, while another has embarked on a new pricing strategy based on property valuation. I asked the banks to provide options by which customers might reduce their monthly repayments and I believe options have been put in place.

While I have not met all mortgage providers operating in Ireland, changes to interest rates by the main lenders should drive competition in the market and exert downward pressure on other lenders to reduce their rates in line with other providers. Sub-prime lenders operate in a particular niche and deal with customers who present a different risk profile to other customers hence their rates will be higher other lenders.

Competition is the best long term way of reducing interest rates paid by Irish borrowers and ensuring that Irish banks offer a sustainable product range. Higher than warranted mortgage interest rates will encourage new entrants to the Irish market over the longer term. As the Deputy will be aware, the Government has undertaken a number of initiatives in order to promote competition in the market. For example, it introduced the changes to Section 149 of the Consumer Credit Act 1995 in the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement Act) 2013 for new entrants. This section regulates fees and charges and the changes mean that it does not apply for the first three years of operation of new entrants to the Irish banking sector as new entrants to the mortgage market bring welcome competition to this sector.

In the shorter term, customers can foster competition by considering switching mortgage provider. Central Bank research suggests that 21% of existing PDH variable rate mortgage customers could save by switching their provider. I expect that if financial institutions are convinced that there is a threat that they will lose existing customers, they will reduce the rates that they currently charge such customers. The CCPC website www.consumerhelp.ie is a valuable source of information on the rates charged by various financial institutions.


*Deputy Michael McGrath: *I thank the Minister for his reply.  Several banks have introduced new options, which are always a good thing, but these options are very selective.  They are of most benefit to new customers in particular.  Many existing customers continue to be discriminated against and the options simply are not for everyone.
  The following are the actual standard variable rates still being charged by the banks today: Bank of Ireland, 4.5%; Permanent TSB, 4.3%; KBC 4.5%. or 4.3% if the customer opens a current account with it; Ulster Bank, 4.3%; AIB, 3.65%; ACC, 4.4%; and Danske Bank, 4.95%.  I could go on and get into the vulture funds and the servicing companies now managing loan books that have been sold.
  Greater fixed rate products have been offered but they come at a price, as the Minister well knows.  Existing customers continue to be charged much higher rates than new customers.  The Minister has concluded his second round of meetings with the banks.  Is he satisfied that they have done enough?  Have the banks satisfied the Minister, because I am not satisfied?  Is the threat of a levy and-or legislation now off the table?  Has the Minister concluded his assessment or is it still an open book on his file?
*Deputy Michael Noonan: *I thank the Deputy for his supplementary question.  He will recall that the Central Bank report published last May, to which I referred, stated that there was an excessive margin being charged in Ireland on variable interest rates but it disagreed that the margin was as big as has been cited in debates here on several occasions.  The banks have moved to lower that particular margin.  AIB has had made three reductions and it is the biggest mortgage provider in the country.  It is down to 3.65% and it does not vary between new mortgages and existing ones.  Permanent TSB has moved from its variable standard rate to what it describes as a managed variable rate and has introduced the concept of loan to value.

In the best loan-to-value situations they are offering money at 3.6%, I believe, and then it varies with loan-to-value rates, so there is significant movement.  There are dozens of interest rates being offered now in different circumstances and I wish to see how the market operates and if competition will kick in.  There is a reluctance among people to change.  There is a type of inertia which is leading to individuals staying with their existing mortgage holders, but there is much better value if people shop around.  It is not something one must fix for life - one will not get that option anyway.  Normally, one fixes for one, two or three years and people can then revert to standard variable rates.  At the conclusion of my meetings with the banks I said that if we are all around, we will talk again early in the new year and we will see how competition is operating.
  On the question of the levy, there has been a levy in place over the last number of budgets.  It will be a matter for the budget, and whether the levy will be maintained as it is, increased or reduced is a matter for announcement on budget day.
*Deputy Michael McGrath: *Reading between the lines, it sounds as if the Minister has made up his mind that the banks have gone far enough to satisfy him.  I believe he is letting the banks off the hook, because they have not gone far enough.  Yes, there have been improvements in the product offering, the fixed rates have come down and the managed variable rates are an innovation, but for many customers who are in negative equity or have very little equity and are really struggling there is little or no improvement.  I have outlined all the variable rates still being charged by banks.  Many of them are still up around the 4% to 4.5% rate and they are even higher in some cases.  That is excessive when one considers the very low cost of funds that the banks are facing at present, the price that consumers must pay by entering into a fixed rate, the loss of flexibility they encounter when they do that and the fact that existing customers are being discriminated against.  When the Minister says that if he is still here he will meet the banks again in the new year, it sounds as if the threat of the levy being increased or of legislation being introduced to give more powers to the Central Bank appears to be off the table.  The Minister has been bought off too easily by the banks on this matter.
*Deputy Michael Noonan: *The Deputy is jumping to conclusions.  While the headline variable rates that the Deputy outlined in his initial contribution are correct, other much lower rates are available to mortgage holders-----
*Deputy Michael McGrath: *For some customers.
*Deputy Michael Noonan: *-----either from their own bank or mortgage provider or by switching.
*Deputy Michael McGrath: *It is very difficult to switch.
*Deputy Michael Noonan: *What puzzles me at present is why more people are not switching.  There is demonstrably an amount of money to be saved if people change, yet there appears to be an inertia in the system and they are not changing.
*Deputy Michael McGrath: *It is not easy to do.
*Deputy Michael Noonan: I wish to let it go for a few months and see if the new competitive situation will operate to the benefit of customers.  We have made significant progress*.  The Deputy's Private Members' Bill, which I complimented as a good initiative, sought to provide that the Central Bank should intervene to fix interest rates if they went above 3%.  We have the two biggest mortgage providers down to 3.65% now, so we are coming close to the position the Deputy outlined.
I am not sure what will happen with interest rates internationally but there are very strong indications that the cycle of rising interest rates could commence this autumn when the US authorities increase interest rates.  People should look seriously at fixing now because we might be at the bottom of the cycle.  If one fixes, one does not fix irretrievably.  One can always revert to a variable rate subsequently.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 Sep 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> What puzzles me at present is why more people are not switching. There is demonstrably an amount of money to be saved if people change, yet there appears to be an inertia in the system and they are not changing.



It's very hard to know what to do about this? 

The Minister is puzzled about why people are not switching.  Only some borrowers can switch and for many of them they are switching from one outrageous rate to a slightly less outrageous rate.  If they could switch to rates around the levels charged in the rest of the Eurozone, far more would switch.

Brendan


----------



## visigoth (30 Sep 2015)

My sentiment exactly. Realistically, only people who bought after the boom can switch but even then they can switch from one high rate to another, somewhat lower, but equally high rate. The elephant in the room is that half of the customers are at 1.5% while another at 4.5% and Noonan portrays the possibility of changing from 4.5 to 3.75 like it is a big deal. Changing to 2.75 would have been a big deal, but even 3.75 is not possible: out of curiosity I explored if I could switch from BOI's 4.5% to AIB's 3.75, went to talk to them last week. My LTV is over 90% but I can probably get down to 90 from savings. But they said my income was not sufficient to meet 3.75 plus 2% stress-tested monthly, even though my income is higher now than in 2008, mortgage lower, and rate in 2008 was over 5. But I already have this mortgage, it is not like I need a new, reasonable one. 

QUOTE We have the two biggest mortgage providers down to 3.65% now, so we are coming close to the position the Deputy outlined. UNQUOTE

Not true, only one mortgage provider, AIB, is down to 3.65.

QUOTE I am not sure what will happen with interest rates internationally but there are very strong indications that the cycle of rising interest rates could commence this autumn when the US authorities increase interest rates. People should look seriously at fixing now because we might be at the bottom of the cycle. UNQUOTE

This argument is even worse, he sounds like a spokesman for the BOI. If they charge 4.5 at the bottom of the cycle, what would they charge later? The european economy is much too vulnerable still and it is not certain that the ECB will increase rates, or increase too much, soon. In fact, it is equally likely that ECB rates remain low for 2 years or so - precisely for the duration of "fix" that the BOI offers.


----------



## visigoth (30 Sep 2015)

I admit that I cannot figure out the govt rationale here. Surely, from the public good perspective, the right goal is to make sure all customers are able to participate in a competition that in turn would bring the rates down. The fact is that NE and high LTV customers cannot switch. Therefore, no competition, the rate stays high. But surely, if NE and high LTV people had a lower, below 3%, rate in the last 3-4 years or so, quite a few would have chosen to overpay, thereby bringing their loans down, making themselves eligible for switching. Win-win. I do not even raise other externalities like fairness or a higher disposable income to feed back into economy. What is the penalty for regulation/caps on of SVR if you put yourself in their shoes? Would it really deter new entrants - btw, what new entrants - or make irish govt bonds riskier? Or is it an indirect subsidy to improve the capitalization of banks? There must be some logic here that from the govt view outweighs regulation but it is not obvious to me.


----------



## todo (30 Sep 2015)

This is a major let down and a disappointment from Deputy Michael Noonan, "*I wish to let it go for a few months" *at who's expense?

He needs to come out and say he is going todo nothing, rather then this silly game of wait and see that he has played with SVR mortgage holders over the last 12 months.


----------



## phantom60 (1 Oct 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> *Deputy Michael Noonan: I wish to let it go for a few months and see if the new competitive situation will operate to the benefit of customers. *



In other words....let's leave it for a few months until right before the election and then look to be seen to be doing something about it then......just in time for everyone to vote for me again.


----------



## Asphyxia (1 Oct 2015)

touche !


----------



## 44brendan (1 Oct 2015)

So the easy response from Michael Noonan would be to change the law to force banks to reduce their SVR's. If it were that simple then why is he not doing it. It would be a tremendous coup for MN & FG and much needed boost to party ratings going into an election.
While fully appreciating the "cartel" nature of SVR's and banks exploitation of same I would see a number of difficulties in bring in Government legislation to fix bank margins on HL SVR's. This intervention would reduce the profits of those banks which are predominately PLC's. Who will compensate the shareholders for the losses in profits? The banks are unlikely to take such intervention lying down and will bring their case to European Courts for compensation. Not being a legal expert I have no idea how strong their case would be. However, would the Government then be entitled to put a cap on the price of a "cup of coffee" or to avoid being facetious capping rents charged by private landlords?
MN can certainly lobby the banks and make life difficult for them but other than that I feel that his powers in this area are limited. Restrictive legislation always sounds good when it is aimed at big corporations like the "evil banks". However the ownership of these organisations is largely composed of private citizens and their pension funds. While we may all support the reduction of SVR's, would we be happy to fund this through losses in our share portfolio or pension policy?
It's the hurlers on the ditch who can always play the best game!


----------



## Asphyxia (1 Oct 2015)

Are you in the ditch or on the pitch ? Which bank do you play for ?


----------



## visigoth (2 Oct 2015)

44brendan said:


> would we be happy to fund this through losses in our share portfolio or pension policy?



Absolutely. I think most normal people supported by their own labour and who have to overpay at arbitrary rates set by the banks would choose restrictive legislation that corrects these rates in line with real funding costs and that may entail losses in the share portfolio of some people. I would be happy to choose in a heartbeat. Any day of the week. I think an overwhelming majority would. Paying at arbitrary rates for your home is unfair and painful; having a share portfolio in the first place is a luxury most people cannot afford. I am not sure how can anybody not see that paying the rate that is 3x of the tracker and 2x of the EU average is simply not normal.I am perplexed that Noonan ignores it. 

Besides, If I did not have to pay that much for my home, well, I might have been able to start my own portfolio, but I would not invest in irish banks.


----------



## Rebuttal (3 Oct 2015)

I think this issue is going to grow legs, I would advise any posters reading this thread, that are being held captive by the Banks ridiciously high SVR mortgages, to email their local representatives and TD's. It's is pre election time, they might just take note.


----------



## tonymac (3 Oct 2015)

You're right rebuttal, the thing is quite a few of us on this forum have been doing so. I personally have been advocating a more public campaign but I don't feel it's receiving enough support as we would need quite a few people 2 picket the places that need picketing. This is the time and I personally haven't ruled out placing pickets on constituency clinics of my local government tds especially with the election coming up


----------



## Rebuttal (3 Oct 2015)

Yes, I do not understand the Irish public, they take to the streets in their thousands in relation to water charges, which equates to 220 euro per household. There are no public demonstration in relation to the overcharging of variable interest rates by the banks to borrowers, which affects at least 600,000 citizens ( conservative estimate ), this equates to 1000's euros per year. Strange that.


----------



## paul o driscoll (3 Oct 2015)

Brilliant last point about water rates campaign  why not somehow link campaigns   why are people on this forum andl other forums not using there correct and full name


----------



## Rebuttal (4 Oct 2015)

Privacy maybe, but you made a good suggestion in your post. I believe some left of centre politicians may have cottoned on to this.


----------



## Ger Fleming (4 Oct 2015)

The government has paid  9.2 billion to service the debt used to bail out the banks and these banks continue to fleece us.  I've just sent my 3rd email to Minister Noonan  this week.  I've also emailed local government tds.  One sent me the fg press release re Noonan speech and answers in Dail.  I pointed out to them how people in negative and LTV greater than 90% were trapped.  I've received no reply from them or from Minister Noonan.  Waiting for one of them to canvass my house. We must keep up the fight.


----------



## Sarenco (4 Oct 2015)

I have repeatedly proposed introducing a statutory cap on variable rate mortgage rates that is referable to a market rate.  However, you should bear in mind that a borrower in negative equity (or with minimal equity) represents a greater risk to a lender so you can't expect to be charged the same rate as a borrower with a low LTV.

The State's investment in the banks was primarily about protecting depositors - not ensuring low rates for borrowers.

None of the above is to suggest that borrowers that are not in a position to switch lenders do not deserve a degree of legal protection - they certainly do in my opinion.


----------



## Ger Fleming (4 Oct 2015)

The states investment in the banks was paid by the tax payer. So all tax payers should be treated equally.  I've never missed a Mortgage payment in 10 years and am a low risk customer in negative equity.  I deserve legal protection from my bank


----------



## Sarenco (4 Oct 2015)

All taxpayers are treated equally.  

You are conflating homeowners with taxpayers - they are not the same thing.  The most vulnerable in our society do not own property.

I have repeatedly argued that borrowers that are not in a position to switch lenders deserve a degree of legal protection.


----------



## Ger Fleming (4 Oct 2015)

I don't agree that all tax payers are treated equally but that's another days work.  Thanks


----------



## Sarenco (4 Oct 2015)

All taxpayers are subject to precisely the same tax code.

I would also point out that homeowners that drew down a mortgage between 2004 and 2012 are receiving a very substantial subvention from taxpayers in the form of mortgage interest relief.  Many of these taxpayers would never qualify for a mortgage due to their low income and yet are subsidising others to purchase their homes.  Does that sound fair?


----------



## tonymac (5 Oct 2015)

I see another article in today's indo in which Michael Noonan outlines his position re asking the banks too reduce their svrs. He's again said he won't ask them as he says he doesn't want to interfere due to the effects it would have on the banks. Time for a tactical review of what if anything we can do next.


----------



## 44brendan (5 Oct 2015)

tonymac said:


> reduce their svrs. He's again said he won't ask them as he says he doesn't want to interfere due to the effects it would have on the banks. Time for a tactical review of what if anything we can do next.


What do you suggest doing? Realistically the banks hold all the cards here. Marching in the streets is only a waste of time. Why would banks care a fig about mass protests. As I posted previously the banks are breaking no laws here and there is nothing the Government can do to force them to change their SVR margins. The only option open to SVR mortgagees is to take action that will directly effect the banks. Eg. something like a mortgage payment strike. In order to be effective this would need the support of a significant number of SVR clients. Realistically I can't see that support being forthcoming (i.e. most will huff and puff but ultimately will continue to meet their repayments).
Bottom line is that nothing will happen without a competitor entering the market or one of the existing banks breaking rank!


----------



## Sarenco (5 Oct 2015)

44brendan said:


> Why would banks care a fig about mass protests. As I posted previously the banks are breaking no laws here and there is nothing the Government can do to force them to change their SVR margins.



The Government could introduce a statutory cap referable to an average market rate - as is the case in France.  It is certainly not the case that Government is completely powerless to do anything.  

Mind you, I certainly agree that campaigning without a specific demand that can actually be actioned by Government is a waste of time.


----------



## tonymac (5 Oct 2015)

I have advocated mass protest and still do, although it hasn't been tried here and is not likely to be as long as the silent majority continue to sit on the fence. The water campaign did force them to reduce the charges at least. Those protests brought thousands onto the streets even though what you pay in water charges in a year we pay in excess mortgage payments in a month.You're right the banks don't give a fig as they haven't seen any public protest or are they likely to at this stage and as you correctly say lots of people in this country will huff and puff but will ultimately pay up. A mortgage payments strike has been mooted here previously but most people are too scared about their credit rating so won't do that either. I would get involved in a payments strike or a picket of some sort but i know we wouldnt have enough people willing enough, if you're not getting enough on this site indicating their willingness to get involved you won't get enough anywhere else. Public protest I have said needs quite a number of people to get involved as a number of places need to be picketed such as the central bank, dept of finance, the Dail and bank hqs and for me the fact that only a small number of people on this site are willing to do means we'd be laughed at. The banks hold the whip hand because they're allowed do what they want by weak consumer protection in this country, a government who won't stand up to the banks after we bailed them out and are doing so again and the vast majority of people who pay svrs who won't do anything. We really are getting what we deserve and will continue to until they're stood up to that's how you deal with bullies.


----------



## demoivre (5 Oct 2015)

44brendan said:


> Bottom line is that nothing will happen without a competitor entering the market or one of the existing banks breaking rank!



This will make no difference to the thousands who can't switch because of negative equity, arrears and shot credit records. This crucial point has sailed with consummate ease over the head of Noonan.


----------



## visigoth (6 Oct 2015)

Sarenco said:


> The State's investment in the banks was primarily about protecting depositors - not ensuring low rates for borrowers.


I think it is a bit more complicated than that. The taxpayer's money injection was not only to protect depositors but also bank debt bondholders, the majority of which were non-Irish based, was it not? The overall aim was also to project credibility of the failed banking system so that the latter is able to borrow money in the future. If not for the taxpayer, the banks would have collapsed. The banks are in a better shape, their borrowing costs are low again. Instead of passing on their current low borrowing rates to the taxpayer (as low mortgage rates) that had bailed them out earlier, the banks exploit the trapped NE and high LTV customers who are trapped precisely because the banks relaxed their lending rules before the crash. 4.5% when they charge 1.5% on trackers is not low imho. I think it is not unreasonable for a taxpayer to expect reciprocity from the rescued banks, and not as TRS from the taxpayer-at-large who indeed may not have her own home in the first place, but from the banks.


----------



## visigoth (6 Oct 2015)

On competition. I would have thought that introducing an interim regulation on SVR, say for the next 5-7 years until all customers are out of NE and reach the magical 80% LTV and therefore can compete on a market, would make sense. But then it is also likely that the next market calamity, Greece again, next Wall street crash, would bring the property market down again. Then people are back to NE and unable to compete again. Then the banks can charge arbitrary rates again. 

tonymac, I am game if you are on a mortgage payment strike but I have not clue how to coordinate. One would need quite a few customers. Otherwise, strikers impair their credit and then for sure cannot switch. 

Other than that, voting against FG/Lab when the time comes and telling them why but do not really see how it changes anything mortgage-wise.


----------



## Sarenco (6 Oct 2015)

I would suggest that there is already a “mortgage strike” taking place.

The outstanding balance on all lenders’ PDH mortgage accounts in arrears of more than 90 days was €14.7 billion at end-March 2015, equivalent to 14.1 per cent of the total outstanding balance on all PDH mortgage accounts and some 33,475 (24 per cent) of 139,206 residential mortgage accounts for buy-to-let properties account were in arrears.

The cost of these defaults is being disproportionately met by borrowers with SVR mortgages.  A further escalation of mortgage defaults would simply exacerbate this situation.


----------



## Sarenco (6 Oct 2015)

visigoth said:


> I think it is a bit more complicated than that. The taxpayer's money injection was not only to protect depositors but also bank debt bondholders, the majority of which were non-Irish based, was it not?.



The primary rationale for the State guarantee and subsequent re-capitalisation of the covered institutions was the protection of depositors.  Senior bonds rank pari passu with deposits and, therefore, the obligations of the covered institutions to their senior bond holders had to be met in order to protect depositors.

The taxpayer's interest, as shareholder, is to derive the greatest possible return on their investment.  You cannot conflate mortgagees and taxpayers - the majority of taxpayers do not have mortgages.


----------



## Sarenco (6 Oct 2015)

visigoth said:


> On competition. I would have thought that introducing an interim regulation on SVR, say for the next 5-7 years until all customers are out of NE and reach the magical 80% LTV and therefore can compete on a market, would make sense.



What do have in mind in terms of your suggested "interim regulation" of SVRs?


----------



## visigoth (6 Oct 2015)

Sarenco said:


> What do have in mind in terms of your suggested "interim regulation" of SVRs?



I meant that if for whatever reason the current govt is reluctant to implement a full-blown regulation so as not to scare competition away, at least they could have implemented caps or what you suggested for an interim period of say 5 years so that people who bought during the boom and are still in NE and therefore cannot switch are protected. In 5-7 years, no NE, can switch, regulation is not so urgent then. I misspoke, meant regulation for an interim period or something. 

I know about mortgage arrears, but don't you see that by keeping rates so high they may be contributing to high levels of defaults, that is, the process becomes self enforcing? I don't know if a likely defaulter profile is someone with SVR, or a tracker. All things being equal though, someone on a SVR is more likely to default I think. But quite frankly I begin to see the situation borderline intolerable: the govt line is we do not want to meddle so as not to scare the competition away, and the banks' line is that the rates are high because we cannot recover our assets. At this stage I don't really care if they choose regulation or repossessions, I just wish they did one or the other.


----------



## Sarenco (6 Oct 2015)

Well if a mortgage rate cap based on average market rates makes sense in principle, I don't really see why it should only be introduced on an interim basis.  The French introduced their statutory cap equivalent to 133% of the average rate on all outstanding mortgages as long ago as 1966!

I take your point that higher mortgage rates may well be contributing to higher default rates and I certainly wish the government would grasp the nettle and deal conclusively with mortgages with long term arrears in an expeditious manner.


----------



## visigoth (6 Oct 2015)

I don't know about the other point, I don't understand why you think we should move on like it never happened. Do you think the majority of taxpayers in Ireland are not mortgage-holders or the family members of mortgage-holders? I just googled and got "At end-March 2015, there were 757,175 private residential mortgage accounts for principal dwellings." 

If you multiply by 2 (2 spouses) and consider that mortgage-holders are in labour force, i.e., not in education or pension, you may in fact get a majority of taxpayers with mortgages. Or close to 50%, dunno. So I think a taxpayer and a mortgage holder most of the time is the same person. My numbers are wrong, you reckon?

Please do not discard the fact that many people during the boom who also had deposit accounts used them for down payments on houses. This money is now gone, evaporated. But performing SVR mortgages yield good profits to the banks, too good. And I would like some kind of acknowledgement that I, as a taxpayer, injected my share of taxes in that bloody bank that could reciprocate a bit. I certainly get it that different taxpayers care about different things but imho the issue of arbitrary mortgage rates and the fact that they are offered by the very banks that the irish taxpayers saved is of sufficient magnitude to warrant public discussion.


----------



## Sarenco (6 Oct 2015)

I certainly don't think "we should move on like it never happened" - whatever gave you that impression?

Yes, at end-March 2015, there were 757,175 private residential mortgage accounts for principal dwellings in Ireland (the majority of which would not be SVR mortgages).  That's out of a total population of around 4,635,400, the vast majority of whom (directly or indirectly) pay taxes.  You don't have to be in employment to be a taxpayer.

While there may be some emotional appeal to talking in terms of "we bailed out the banks, it's just not fair!" - it doesn't actually get you anywhere.

The net margin on SVRs is very high - no debate.  I have suggested one approach to addressing this issue that should have no material cost implications for taxpayers.


----------



## visigoth (7 Oct 2015)

Perhaps I misunderstood but somehow you treat the existing banks as typical businesses in a marketplace and we should discuss rationally their rates, whether to switch, etc. I feel like something is missing here. I am perplexed that the very banks that brought the economy to the brink now behave like it never happened and instead of reducing the rate of the affected customers they offer "2% cash back" offers to new customers and the new cycle of life continues. I can not see them as normal businesses though, normal business are allowed to fail.

My point in "we should [not] move on like it never happened" is that if we introduce govt regulation in a marketplace by bailing them out, or if we regulate house prices now (mandated LTV and LTI) that ensures owners like myself would never be able to recover our investment at the prices bought, why not also regulate mortgage rates for people who lost deposits aka down payments? If they say A, why not say B?  I assume my responsibility for losing all my money and taking on too much debt. The bank should assume responsibility for inexplicably relaxing their lending criteria. The question is not only if it is fair or not, it is also if the mortgage contract benefits both parties, i.e., if it is sustainable. If one party sees the contract is not fair, ultimately it is not very sustainable. Maybe I cannot switch now. But the moment I can, I will. I will switch even if another bank offers the same rate. How can the BOI not see that?


----------



## visigoth (7 Oct 2015)

You alleged that I equated the interests of taxpayers with those of mortgage holders but you equally equate the interests of taxpayers with those of non-mortgage holders. There is no such a thing as "the taxpayer" in general, we all have different preferences and goals, correct? A taxpayer with kids wants better education, a taxpayer without kids wants something else. A taxpayer in Dublin wants metro north, a taxpayer in tipp town does not care. If the current regulation that places brakes on house prices benefits taxpayers without houses who want to buy at the disadvantage of taxpayers who are house owners (not only those who want to sell but also those who want to switch but have a high LTV), you cannot say it benefits "the taxpayer" in general, it benefits specific taxpayers. I think that the number of taxpayers who happen to be mortgage holders is large enough (whether you multiply 760K by 2 spouses or by 4, the median family in Ireland) to see that there is a large group of taxpayers who may want a lower rate in return for their bail out. I don't think it is emotional, it is commonsensical. 

"The net margin on SVRs is very high - no debate." Yes, not debate here. Noonan seems to be the only one who does not see that. Pity he is the only one who matters.


----------



## Clonback (13 Oct 2015)

Not one word from Minister Noonan about rip off mortgage rates in his budjet statement.No special bank levy.
Michael McGrath put it up to him again with a great response about what he promised he would do for SVR mortgagees.
It is obvious Fine Gael don't care


----------



## Ger Fleming (13 Oct 2015)

Michael Noonan doesn't listen to anyone except his bosses in the banks.  Mortgages didn't even get a mention.  I can assure Noonan that his government won't get a mention the next time I vote.


----------



## tonymac (13 Oct 2015)

Awful stuff, ive put something together in the thread about the bank levy just continuing till 2021, as I said there it shouldve been upped significantly. Obviously were not a priority to this government ,  wait until the rates start going up, the amount of arrears and repossessions that will affect SVR holders then. Will we then be able to apply for social housing then seeing as we'd ve been priced out of trying to provide for ourselves and our families as well as having the stress of dealing with the banks coming after us.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (13 Oct 2015)

Clonback said:


> No special bank levy.



The bank levy was extended!

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/bank-levy-extended.196097/#post-1448041

This is bad news for mortgage holders. It will be recovered from them. 

Brendan


----------



## Clonback (13 Oct 2015)

In the interest of accuracy Minister Noonan said he would penalise the banks if they did not reduce SVR mortgages with an increased levy.This did not happen.


----------



## Sarenco (13 Oct 2015)

Clonback said:


> In the interest of accuracy Minister Noonan said he would penalise the banks if they did not reduce SVR mortgages with an increased levy.This did not happen.



Not quite. 

The Minister said that “the issue of a penal banking levy in the Budget or powers for the Central Banks to regulate interest rates will be considered at that time [in September] if sufficient progress is not made.”

He was never specific as to what would or would not constitute "sufficient progress" for this purpose.


----------



## tonymac (13 Oct 2015)

Exactly he wasn't specific which allowed him to come out and say go and switch and competition will sort this out. What about the captives who can't do either and are stuck paying high svrs until they can switch. Roll on the election and hopefully enough people who are captives will do the appropriate thing for them and leave the boxes with FG and  LAB candidates blank just like what was done for us today, NOTHING


----------



## Kerrigan (13 Oct 2015)

I wasn't expecting Noonan to do anything for us today.  I'm servicing a SVR 4.4% interest rate and if it increases any further I'm in serious strife.


----------



## tonymac (13 Oct 2015)

Trust me Kerrigan, neither was i although that doesn't prevent me from being very annoyed about it as a lot of us have been emailing etc, just shows how much they've been listening to us. As I've mentioned in another thread god help us when the rates start going up again, imagine the arrears and repossessions then if it gets bad enough. They've had numerous chances to deal with this most especially today and they haven't. Roll on spring 2016 and the election god help any FG or LAB candidates I get to meet.


----------



## Sarenco (13 Oct 2015)

As a matter of interest, what specific commitments will you be seeking from candidates or parties to attract your vote?


----------



## tonymac (13 Oct 2015)

What I've been saying on this forum about my sense of unfairness regarding svrs and the treatment of people who have them will be highlighted as will the specifics of the captives who can't take ministers advice to switch etc. I will seek legal protection for these people, certainly protection that lasts until they're in a position to shop around as they are at the mercy of the banks. I do acknowledge that these people have the biggest debts and are a higher risk to banks but as I've said previously people on svrs are carrying a  far bigger burden for getting the banks back to profitability than most others, something  should be done to help them at least until they're in a position to shop around. I have said that the mortgage relief scheme should be continued which I know you've said to me and others that you're taxes could be spent better on health care etc. That's fine and laudable but god help us when not if rates start going upwards. They'll be some arrears and repossessions then I'd imagine and then people will need social housing after being put out of their homes by the banks. I'm taking it that sooner or later they will become much more aggressive about repossessions.


----------



## Sarenco (13 Oct 2015)

tonymac said:


> something  should be done.



That's my point really Tony.

"Something should be done" sounds a bit like "down with this sort of thing" to me - it's just incredibly vague.

I have no doubt whatsoever that a multitude of parties and candidates will share your sense of outrage (or at least will be anxious to give that impression) but I would be far less confident that any will offer any meaningful proposals in this regard - they certainly haven't so far. 

Yes, FF and SF have published private members bills to give the Central Bank the power to fix or adjust rates but what difference would that make?  The Central Bank has made it quite clear that it doesn't want this power and wouldn't exercise any such power even if it did have it. 

I'm not trying to have a go - I happen to agree with you that there is a cohort of variable rate borrowers that are deserving of legal protection and I have made certain suggestions in this regard.


----------



## tonymac (13 Oct 2015)

Sarenco said:


> That's my point really Tony.
> 
> "Something should be done" sounds a bit like "down with this sort of thing" to me - it's just incredibly vague.
> 
> ...


----------



## tonymac (13 Oct 2015)

Sarenco said:


> That's my point really Tony.
> 
> "Something should be done" sounds a bit like "down with this sort of thing" to me - it's just incredibly vague.
> 
> ...


I can appreciate how it might come across as vague Sarenco but my sense of unfairness is anything but. I feel we actually agree on quite a bit certainly that candidates will share my sense of outrage but offer little as far as suggestions  to solve this. Our problem is that FG will probably get back in as I don't think the opposition will get the seat numbers and I know you're not trying to have a go. I do think the consumer protection authorities should be made do their job. We do disagree on certain solutions but something needs to be done as I have mentioned my concerns about higher rates when they come egarrears and repossessions. There's enough advisors on big money that should be able to come up with a workable solution , it's just there seems to be no effort to do something


----------



## Sarenco (13 Oct 2015)

Fair enough Tony - I'm not for a second doubting your strength of feeling on this issue.

Tell you what, if a politician (any politician) canvasses you for a vote in the upcoming election, I would suggest that you don't let them off the doorstep until they tell you *exactly* what their party proposes to do on this issue if they participate in government.  I'm regularly amazed how party positions change if they think it's costing them votes but you really need to nail them down on their specific proposals and then make your judgment.


----------



## MorgVar (13 Oct 2015)

Budget Feedback:Can i Suggest a few of us disgruntled mortgage holders phone in to give our direct feedback to Minister on Sean O Rourke show, tomorrow Radio 1, 10 am?. This gives us a direct opportunity?


----------



## tonymac (13 Oct 2015)

Sarenco said:


> Fair enough Tony - I'm not for a second doubting your strength of feeling on this issue.
> 
> Tell you what, if a politician (any politician) canvasses you for a vote in the upcoming election, I would suggest that you don't let them off the doorstep until they tell you *exactly* what their party proposes to do on this issue if they participate in government.  I'm regularly amazed how party positions change if they think it's costing them votes but you really need to nail them down on their specific proposals and then make your judgment.


This is it and I sincerely hope that enough people will do so so as they realise that it still is an issue. I've heard nobody other than Michael McGrath mention it, somebody on another thread mentioned that they heard he did say it in the Dail. Obviously a low priority for them.


----------



## Sarenco (13 Oct 2015)

Michael McGrath is exactly who I had in mind in making my previous comments.  

He certainly raises this issue on a very regular basis but has he actually proposed anything that would make any real difference?  If he has, I've obviously missed it.

Making sounds about an issue and actually proposing something that will make any substantial difference are two very different things.


----------



## MorgVar (14 Oct 2015)

*Phone Minister Noonan Today*- All affected should phone Sean O Rourke show now to express their views- 1850 715 900.

 Show starts at 10 live.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (14 Oct 2015)

Sarenco said:


> He certainly raises this issue on a very regular basis but has he actually proposed anything that would make any real difference? If he has, I've obviously missed it.



By continuously raising the issue, he has put pressure on the Minister, the Central Bank and the banks.  He has been a key element of the campaign which has seen some reductions in mortgage rates. 

And he has made solid proposals: 

*FF bill on mortgage interest rates*


----------



## Clonback (14 Oct 2015)

I tried my best to get onto Sean O Rourke programme this morning but failed.
We have 300,000 variable rate mortgage holders which should mean at least 600,000 votes.
Now is the time to organise so let's have proposals.


----------



## Sarenco (14 Oct 2015)

Hi Brendan

Yes, I referenced the two private members Bills in my earlier post (see post #59) but I do not believe either Bill would have been effective in achieving its objectives for the reasons stated.

The primary reason, in my opinion, for the rate reductions and new mortgage product launches that we have seen in recent months is a degree of competition re-emerging between the incumbent lenders to retain existing business and/or attract new business.  Political pressure may have played some minor role in expediting this process but I believe it would have happened anyway.

The difficulty, of course, is that there is a cohort of borrowers that are not in a position to switch providers or to avail of lower fixed rates.


----------



## Eureka101 (15 Oct 2015)

I also emailed my question to SOR show and they requested my phone number but I never got the call back.

Unfortunate as I was quite prepared to question the ministers regarding Danske situation.


----------



## Eureka101 (15 Oct 2015)

However, I did then email Minister Noonan again to ask for an update as to when he might meet with Danske. 
I also copied the Central Bank as they have encouraged all communication from financial consumers to help them gauge sentiment.


----------



## demoivre (17 Nov 2015)

I  emailed Noonan in October regarding the inability of some borrowers to change lender. 


Dear Mr Noonan,

In you recent reply to Deputy Michael McGrath regarding the above you stated:

_I expect that if financial institutions are convinced that there is a threat that they will lose existing customers, they will reduce the rates that they currently charge such customers.

_
Do you not realise that there are thousands of mortgage customers that can't switch lenders because of arrears, negative equity and ruined credit records? It is precisely because of these reasons that the banks can get away , unchallenged, with charging exorbitant rates to existing customers. It is incumbent on you and your government to do something to help these customers who *can't *switch financial institutions.

Yours sincerely,
demoivre


*And his reply last Friday.*


Dear demoivre,


The Minister for Finance Mr Michael Noonan TD has asked me to acknowledge your email dated 7th October 2015 regarding mortgage interest rates.

As you know, the Minister for Finance has taken steps to ensure that the banks provide options for mortgage holders to reduce their monthly repayments. This has involved engaging with the Central Bank and the main lenders on the issue.

The Minister asked the banks to provide options by which mortgage customers might reduce their monthly repayments and believes options have been put in place. These options range from lower variable rates to new suites of variable rates based on loan to value and reductions in fixed rates.

It would not be appropriate for the Minister to advise you what offer to accept. It is a matter for each individual borrower to decide what suits their circumstances but the Minister encourages borrowers to contact their bank to see what is available to them in their circumstances or consider moving to another bank, where possible, if the offer is not satisfactory. The Minister acknowledges that this may not be possible in certain circumstances, however changes to interest rates by the main lenders should in time drive competition in the mortgage market and exert downward pressure on other lenders to reduce their rates and/or provide other options.

The Department will continue to keep the situation under review.

I trust this information clarifies the position.



Yours sincerely,



_________________

Alex Lalor

Private Secretary to the Minister for Finance. 


Why did I bother


----------



## Clonback (17 Nov 2015)

As he has already failed miserably to put any real pressure on the banks he waffles more and does not even answer the question posed I.e.what is the government going to do for the people who cannot switch?

Roll on the election and we all have option to switch party preference.


----------



## tonymac (18 Nov 2015)

Exactly to a word the reply I got from him. Yes roll on the election and I do hope that enough of the 300,000 SVR mortgage holders will make this a deciding issue on their voting preferences. I shouldn't have to say this but I suspect it won't be with a lot of them seeing as they have stayed so quiet during the campaign and have wrecked our chances of publicly highlighting it with protests by doing so. Typical in Ireland all huff but no puff. The election for me is the final chance for us so anyone reading please make it count.


----------



## summersday (18 Nov 2015)

But who would you suggest voting for? Who will do any different?
I am with EBS at 4,3% variable - bought in 2005 at the wrong time, not worth anything near what I paid!    
It really annoys me that AIB, basically the same bank, charge only 3.65% - I feel screwed.   At my rate there really isn't anyone to switch to I think.   I'm dreading the day rates go up and the first time buyers allowance is gone - then I'll be in bother.
Rates are certainly something that will be a decider for me on who I vote for and it will be a question I'll ask at the door.


----------



## Clonback (18 Nov 2015)

Michael McGrath the FF spokesman on finance has been very vocal on this subject.He introduced a private members bill in the Dail and attended the Fair Mortgage Rates campaign meeting last May in dublin.He has a clear grasp of the issues we are faced with.
Pearse Doherty has also spoke a number of times in the Dail.


----------



## Ger Fleming (19 Nov 2015)

I've just emailed minister Noonan and my local government tds to express my displeasure at the way he continues to ignore the plight of citizens paying way above the EU interest rates.  I also stated that having listen to Joan Burton in the dail today I have finally resigned myself to the fact that there will be no change in this government's policy and what the banks say goes.  Joan as usual didn't even answer the question put to her and went on with her usual spin and bull.  I finally  reminded Mr Noonan and my local tds that I would remember their lack of effort when the election time comes.


----------



## tonymac (19 Nov 2015)

Hi summers day,  sorry I'm only getting back to you now I've had problems with my password .  Thanks also clonback as you're reply to summers day is very similar to what I was planning to write. Michael McGrath has been doing good work for us and his party will be getting support from me consequently. Brian Hayes has been doing some good work for us in Europe which I'm happy to acknowledge  but my fault with him is that he didn't do anything when minister of state at the dept of finance as well as being from FG, the party of Michael Noonan.


----------



## trimtosh (22 Nov 2015)

I have lobbied both my local FG TDs and Minister Noonan - have received bland standard replies showing the progress they have made with some variables rates and fixed offerings. What they fail to address is the still too high variable rates and the issue that some mortgage holders cannot switch. We need to continue e mailing our local politicians - we cannot let them off the hook on this one, have to make this an election issue before the election!


----------



## qwerty5 (23 Nov 2015)

Even for the mortgage holders that can switch it's a painful process. I'm in the process of switching from KBC. I'm losing the will to live 
I supplied the initial documentation and then had new requests from the new bank. Every time a new request comes in I have to go off and get the documentation. That might take a couple of weeks. Then in the meantime the documentation I'd already supplied is too old so has to be applied for again.
My situation is probably complicated but I'm moving from a high interest bank to a lower interest bank just so I'm saving a couple of hundred a month. That's the only reason. We've been paying the mortgage for 8 years with no hassle and have paid off extra. I know the new bank has to do their due diligence but surely there could be an easier way. 
This is just playing into the banks that have the higher interest rates. They know people don't want this hassle so they don't really have much incentive to reduce their rates.


----------



## Ger Fleming (30 Nov 2015)

I received an email from Minister Noonan today re vmr.  It outlined all the various options available to people after policy changes by banks.  A whole load of crap as usual.  This guy doesn't want to know the reality of the situation for customers.


----------



## Clonback (4 Dec 2015)

The ECB meeting yesterday decided to cut the deposit rate that banks get  to minus 0.3% from minus 0.2% which should encourage banks to lend instead of hoarding.It should help to keep lending rates subdued for a longer period.
Any chance of Minister Noonan waking up and finally putting pressure on the banks to reduce the rip off SVR mortgages.


----------



## seamus m (5 Dec 2015)

An organised campaign leading to a month where no pays back mortgages that would put pressure on banks.


----------



## Clonback (5 Dec 2015)

Seamus,the problem with your suggestion is we would all end up with a tarnished credit record if that has not already happened.
The format of a planned campaign is what needs to be agreed and before the general election.


----------



## Ger Fleming (7 Dec 2015)

I wonder what Michael Noonan will have to say re secret bonuses being paid to ptsb staff.  I'm not surprised but in light of their continued treatment of vrm holders this is sickening.


----------



## Gerry Canning (7 Dec 2015)

Mr Noonan, Central Bank , Ombudsman and the rest will do all and everything to ensure Banks are profitable , you the SVR people are caught in this.
Unless you strongly tell your Td,s that this needs sorting now before an election , you can whistle for it afterwards!

Am told there are 300,000 Svr mortgages = a lot of votes.


----------



## Ger Fleming (7 Dec 2015)

Gerry Canning said:


> Mr Noonan, Central Bank , Ombudsman and the rest will do all and everything to ensure Banks are profitable , you the SVR people are caught in this.
> Unless you strongly tell your Td,s that this needs sorting now before an election , you can whistle for it afterwards!
> 
> Am told there are 300,000 Svr mortgages = a lot of votes.


I've emailed tds and minister regularly as I did this morning when I saw the report on ptsb bonuses.  I will not let up on my protests.


----------



## Clonback (7 Dec 2015)

Now is the time to let Minister Noonan know we had enough.We must organise and show strength.As the late John Healy said "nobody shouted stop"
Its all about votes from now until election day so let's have suggestions.


----------



## todo (7 Dec 2015)

We need away to reach those 300,000 svr customers, that is the key.

If they could be shown what is at stake in terms of real money then the strength of all the votes could be put to good use.


----------



## demoivre (7 Dec 2015)

I see onebigswitch are getting involved. However the problem with switching banks for a mortgage is that many people can't switch because of arrears, negative equity and/or shot credit records.


----------



## todo (7 Dec 2015)

demoivre said:


> I see onebigswitch are getting involved. However the problem with switching banks for a mortgage is that many people can't switch because of arrears, negative equity and/or shot credit records.



Can't see it doing any harm, I've signed up with them, maybe it will help to bring all those who can't switch together and they can effect change by using their vote.

Their is strength in numbers. Any process that can bring everyone together should be welcomed.


----------



## Ger Fleming (7 Dec 2015)

todo said:


> Can't see it doing any harm, I've signed up with them, maybe it will help to bring all those who can't switch together and they can effect change by using their vote.
> 
> Their is strength in numbers. Any process that can bring everyone together should be welcomed.


Thanks for you post.  I just registered with one big switch. The more pressure the better. Can't wait for the boys and girls to come knocking on my door looking for votes.  These guys gave themselves a big rise two weeks ago through a vote passed during a late night sitting.  Nerve of them.


----------



## Clonback (8 Dec 2015)

Yes good idea to register with onebigswitch but we need numbers to get our campaign launched with a clear focus.
What do people think?


----------



## todo (8 Dec 2015)

Clonback said:


> Yes good idea to register with onebigswitch but we need numbers to get our campaign launched with a clear focus.
> What do people think?



It would be interesting to get updates on how many have signed up, it would be very powerful to be able to communicate with all of the mortgage holders that are effected.


----------



## Ger Fleming (8 Dec 2015)

Information re how many signed up with be a good idea.  Knowledge is a powerful tool and Information like that could be used when protesting to tds by email.


----------



## Gerry Canning (9 Dec 2015)

AAM & Brendan in particular is well known to Government.
Suggest when you write attach your AAM postings, (I assume Brendan won,t object)


----------



## Clonback (9 Dec 2015)

4,500 people have now signed up to onebigswitch in the first 7 days.


----------



## visigoth (10 Dec 2015)

Brilliant idea. I signed up and will urge people with svr that i know to sign up also. I only hope they publicise it enough so it becomes visible enough, a focal point for all captive customers so that the numbers are there. Like you guys I am sick of writing to minister Noonan's office and receiving copy-pasted meaningless emails from him and my local TDs. 

On another thread I calculated that from a hypothetical 300K mortgage with 4.5% extracted from customers and when the BOI itself can borrow at 0.7% short-term, the bank extracts 120K in interest in first ten years while paying only 12K for the same amount or so. Well, maybe they pay a bit more if they have to borrow at over 0.7%, and pay for bad debts, but the difference is huge. When I signed for svr in 08, it was 1.2% over ecb base rate, and it was never higher than 1.6% or so until 2010. And now it is 4.45% over. I simply cant take this anymore.


----------



## shweeney (15 Dec 2015)

How many people to OneBigSwitch need - switching mortgages is a lot more complex and time consuming than switching electricity supplier.  Half the signees may not actually be able to switch due to negative equity, arrears, changes in personal circumstances etc and half the rest may baulk or get bored at the amount of documentation they need to assemble.


----------



## todo (15 Dec 2015)

I think if OneBigSwitch can show what is at stake to mortgage holders. For example a 1% decrease would save x a month, I think that would help most people overcome the obstacles.

We need a way to gather everybody together and reward good banks who treat there customers well and with respect.


----------



## Clonback (16 Dec 2015)

5700 mortgage holders have now signed up to onebigswitch which is only 2 weeks in operation.
Their online poll findings include:
53% said "high mortgage rates would have a very significant influence on how they vote in the general election"
Less than 10% believe TD's have a "moderate" or "very good " understanding of the bill stress caused by high mortgage rates.

Let's use our vote to reward the political party who tackle the problem head on.


----------



## Clonback (18 Dec 2015)

Good article by Charlie Weston in todays Irish Independent: Variable rates set to become major issue in General Election
He elaborates on the onebigswitch poll mentioned above.Dont forget to make this a reality for the current government parties as the poll says they don't understand the financial pain we are suffering.
Also thanks to Brendan Burgess for keeping this issue live at the AIB shareholders meeting this week.


----------



## todo (18 Dec 2015)

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...major-issue-in-general-election-34297829.html

Yes keep the Pressure on. Thanks to both Charlie and Brendan.


----------



## random2011 (18 Dec 2015)

The only TD who seems interested in this issue is Michael McGrath so that's where my vote is going.


----------

