# RTE's money program with Alvin Hobbs continues this week



## zag (15 Jan 2004)

I mean Eddie Hobbs.

[broken link removed]

I see RTE are giving the show much exposure on their homepage - www.rte.ie

z


----------



## Marion (16 Jan 2004)

*re programme 2*

I thought this programme was much better. I liked the couple. 

At the beginning we were informed that the debts amounted to 44% of the income, this somehow became 47% later. But hey ... 3% is no big deal! Only ... €1000 pa odd.

Marion :hat


----------



## Pandy (16 Jan 2004)

*SMTM*

I loved the show. it was over three months so the % of income might have to do with either a change of rates or a change of income. No mattter it wasn't material, and the show was very uplifting. Good on ye.


----------



## Freddie Kruger (16 Jan 2004)

*Re: SMTM*

Excellent Show.


----------



## paulie (16 Jan 2004)

*last night's show*

Thought last night's show was better than the first as the idea of consolidating loans would prove useful for many in the same boat.

As an aside, one can only imagine the argument after filming when the husband found out the full extent of the debt...considering he hardly spent anything on himself...


----------



## Sally (16 Jan 2004)

*SMTM*

Great show. I laughed through it even though it was very serious. Lots of talent on display. I'm becoming an Eddie fan.


----------



## ninsaga (16 Jan 2004)

*Re: SMTM*

It was great - the show is climbing up the creability rankings. Here You have an ordinary couple with crippling debts. 

gets the thumbs up from me!


----------



## daltonr (16 Jan 2004)

*Re: SMTM*

Good show last night.

I wasnt sure whether he freed up €7700 in extra spending money for them (if so that should have gone towards repaying the load more quickly), 

Or whether they were over-spending by €7700 per year and by consolodating they just got back to a break even point.

They reduced the debt by about €1000 in 3 months which means they're paying in the vicinity of €300 to €400 per month, but €7700 is €640 per month, so if this is additional cash flow as Eddie kept describing it then it's madness not to try to clear the loan in a much shorter time.

Nice to see they covered the issue of borrowing a little more than you need.  Most of the Consolodation Loan Ads include the tag line "why not borrow a little more for a holiday, home improvements etc?"

I suspect if it had been Alvin He'd have been much harder on them for taking that extra cash.

Good show though.  Might have been better to open with this one.  There might be even better to come!

-Rd


----------



## Elcato (16 Jan 2004)

*Re: SMTM*

Agree with all. Great show. Had to laugh at the attitude the wife showed to cutting up the credit card.
"Its like cutting up 2,500 euro"
I think EH's suspicions of the next offer of a credit card thru' the post will be taken up by her. It also brings home the disgraceful credit been handed out by the likes of CitiFinancial. A loan of 17k on interest of 16% . Surely this loan should have been refused in the first place. The only reason for not refusing may have been that it was the first loan and they may have mis-stated the purpose.


----------



## daltonr (16 Jan 2004)

*Re: SMTM*

One thing I didn't quite understand.

They had debts of €33000, and they consolodated that 
into one CU loan.  But there was no mention of whether or
not the CU required savings.  I can't imagine a CU loaning €30,000 without at least a couple of thousand on deposit.

-Rd


----------



## SAM (16 Jan 2004)

*SMTM*

They used the Health Services Credit Union, but I guess you're right about the scale. I suspect that they didn't have a bob saved otherwise Eddie Hobbs would have used it to reduce the debt, and it would have been mentioned. Hobbs probably engaged in a little arm twisting at the Credit Union, but whatever the case the CU did come out well from the show. Good stuff, and no shirt sticking out!


----------



## Lisa (16 Jan 2004)

*What about Lisa*

I thought it was a great show - this family could become a soap opera. 

What was the story with their daughter Lisa? She was 16 and had just left school. She didn't seem to be earning anything or contributing anything. In fact she was asking her Ma for €20 or €50 all the time.

They had €33000 worth of loans. By moving to the Credit Union, they reduced the rate by around 9%. 9% of 33000 is around €3000. So they saved €3000 a year, and not €7700. The €7700 was in repayments. That means that it will take them a lot longer to pay off their loans. Now that I think of it, is this what daltonr means?


Lisa


----------



## daltonr (16 Jan 2004)

*Re: What about Lisa*

Lisa,

Before Eddie Rode in in His Toyota Jeep (not the most economical vehicle btw) they were paying just under €17,000.
(47% of €36000).

The CU Loan has repayments just over €9000 per year which meant a saving of €7700 on the amount being spent servicing the debt.

Eddie plays fast and loose with figures sometimes which is one criticism I'd have.  He mentioned 43%, 47%, he mentioned €7,700 savings p/a.  Last episode there was the Gross/Net confusion.

It's not clear whether the money they saved in repayments was money they could afford to keep and save, or whether they needed to cut the debt repayments just to break even.  €7,700 p/a sounds like a lot of money to be paying out over and above what they earned.

The fact that they borrowed and extra €1000 for a holiday suggests there hasn't been a Lightbulb moment yet!  

The bottom line is for all the talk about Cash and Cash Only, they actually used credit to buy a holiday.  They borrowed €1000 from the CU and left it sitting in the post office.  Eddie should have used that as an opportunity to explain the folly of doing that.  

Good show but I think he needs to dole out some tough love.

-Rd


----------



## fobs (16 Jan 2004)

*good show*

Enjoyed the show last night. I wonder how typical they are as a family that lets one person either the husband/wife control all the finances and they other partner not being at all clued in. Even when they were refused a mortgage he never thought of questioning their financial position then.

It should teach people that the household finances need to be a partnership and that people need to be clued into their ingoings/outgoings.

If the husband takes a more active role then I feel they will keep to the plan otherwise I feel the wife will be too tempted to go off the rails again. She doesn't seem to understand the concept of credit cards being like any other loan to be repaid!


----------



## Rmul (17 Jan 2004)

*SMTM*

I watch Alvin Hall. SMTM beat it hands down last night. Alvin should be ringing Eddie for tips


----------



## ninsaga (17 Jan 2004)

*Re: SMTM*

fobs  - it is not uncommon at all for one person to take care of the finances. Not everone has the interest or understanding to do this. In some cse one person may want to look after all of it.


----------



## fobs (17 Jan 2004)

*Re: SMTM*

Ninsaga - I know some people are better at money than others but feel that everyone should know their current borrowings and their net income.  Leave the day-to-day financial stuff to one person is ok but both should be involved in the family budgeting and a discussion once in a while to highlight any concerns is good. If someone hasn't a clue about the family finances how do they know what they can spend? Surely the day of a person getting an allowance for housekeeping and not knowing anything else about the finances is gone (or should be!). In my opinion as what often happens is that if a partner dies then the other partner is clueless as to their financial state and have to learn the hard way. Everyone can learn simple accounting basics that expenses shouldn't exceed income!


----------



## Vanilla (18 Jan 2004)

*Re: SMTM*

What is the 'Health Services Credit Union'?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Jan 2004)

*Re: SMTM*

Every Credit Union has a common bond - which the members must have to join it. So you must live or work in Sandymout to join the Sandymount Credit Union. You must work in the ESB to be a member of the ESB Credit Union.

The Health Services Credit Union is for those employed in the Health Services. Liz worked in a hospital.

Brendan


----------



## Rmul (18 Jan 2004)

*Above*

What I thought was very interesting was the fact that regular bills, presumably council rent, ESB, heating and so on was being deducted by the HS CU and paid over, including their repayments for the loan. For the woman in the show that was a neat solution. Does every CU run these type of budget plans? Its a super service.


----------



## <A HREF=http://pub145.ezboard.com/baskaboutmoney.s (18 Jan 2004)

*Re: Above*

Not sure if all CU's operate such schemes but An Post run a household budget scheme for customers in receipt of Social Welfare payments in case that's of any interest: www.anpost.ie/personal/pe...udget.html


----------



## Brendan Burgess (19 Jan 2004)

*Re: Above*

The previous week's show had an audience of 477,000 according to the [broken link removed]

Brendan


----------



## soc (21 Jan 2004)

*Re: Above*

I didn't think Eddie's show was as effective in tackling financial issues in comparison to Alvin Hall's show.  Eddie just showed the 'troubled family' how to consolidate their loans to save interest to solve the problem.  He didn't really provde them with any sort of 'financial counselling'.

I felt that Eddie failed to focus on what really caused the family's debts in the first place, or examples of how they could change their spending habits to minimise accumulating any further debts. I noticed that parents and daughter all smoked - I'm sure cutting down on the habit would have saved them a pretty penny.  Plus we didn't really know how much each spent on a weekly basis in the pub... or what their general spending habits were... that contributed to them having to take out loans, and thus add to their growing debt. 

In the case of Alvin Hall's show - he would at least demonstrate to the trouble participants, physical examples of how much money was being thrown away to try and make the participants have a real value for money.  I think Eddie failed to make the 'troubled family' aware of just how valuable money REALLY is.  I mean...the fact that the family decided to give themselves a holiday using BORROWED money (that was supposed to have only been used to consolidate their numerous loans), despite Eddie's brief advice on using ACTUAL MONEY to buy luxury goods/services, just summed it all up.    

I unfortunately missed the first show in the series, but having seen the second one, the show appears to demonstrate a 'quick fix' to sorting current financial problems... rather than focusing on long-term solutions.  In fact, I was very much looking forward to seeing the show, but was very disappointed having seen 'Epsiode 2'.  I'm curious as to what will be presented in the third show....and whether it will offer another quick fix solution.


----------



## Rmul (21 Jan 2004)

*SMTM*

Hi Soc,

Funny I thought the opposite, and so too did most people who watched judging by the response, but viva la difference! I also thought that the presenter is much more credible, and doesn't ham up when talking to people. Alvin Hall is very concious of the camera and the need to razzle dazzle. I much prefer Hobbs down to earth style. I don't understand how the show didn't satisfy the need to examine the behaviour pattern that led to the borrowing- it couldn't have been clearer.

I think you're a little harsh on working class people and ciggies. Given the circumstances if I'd be smoking too.


----------



## daltonr (22 Jan 2004)

*Alvin Vs Eddie*

Alvin Hobbs is more of a showman, he does try to surprise the participant with just how much money they waste.  Remember the woman who spent more each month on clothes than on the family mortgage?  She had no idea.

Alvin Hall gets angry with people (if only in a light hearted way, but he is capable of making people cry).  

When I saw that woman announce that while reconciling her 33,000 debt she had "taken a little more for a holiday" I felt like screaming at her, and Eddie should have.  

In one sentance she proved that the whole experience with Eddie was a complete waste of time, and instead of his uplifting comments at the end he should have said that this family were a lost cause.

Apart from the Holiday, the other very telling comment was from the daughter.

"I just ask for €20 or €50 and they give it to me"

Just as the rich teach their kids about money, so do the poor, it's just different lessons.

Eddie kept passing up great opportunities to do a little side bar about this kind of attitude, or about teaching kids the right lessons about money, or about borrowing a little more while reconciling.

I really want episode 3 to be very good.  2 was enjoyable to watch (in that "god this is annoying" way), but I thought it glossed over too much.  It's all very vague, numbers are thrown around like toys in a creche.

Worst of all someone who didn't have TV camera's behind them could not have borrowed 30000 from a credit union with no savings, so the show was dishonest to the viewers as well.

As for the cigarettes, I'm a big fan of peoples freedom to be stupid and spend a fortune on smoking, As a Debt Adviser should Eddie have pointed out the financial benefits of quiting?  I don't know.

-Rd


----------



## Huzz (22 Jan 2004)

*SMTM*

I saw last weeks show, and liked it. Both Hobbs and Hall are completely different performers, in different cultures. I prefer Hobbs, so far, but if I was a Brit, I'd probably find his Irishness a bit off putting.

I think that the benefit of the show is to popularise discussion about money, overspending and debt here in Ireland. Most people NEVER read the financials, because they find it complex and boring. We can't understand that, but its how it is. I found a lot of people talking over the next few days about SMTM at work and in the pub. Alvin Hall was never discussed in my experience, surely that's the real benefit of the new show.

There are many things I'd do differently to SMTM, but that's not the point. I'm not the presenter, or faced with dealing with the problems adssociated with making a programme in Ireland. All told I think its a fine show, and the public like it.


----------



## <A HREF=http://pub145.ezboard.com/baskaboutmoney.s (22 Jan 2004)

*Re: Above*



> I'm curious as to what will be presented in the third show....and whether it will offer another quick fix solution.



[broken link removed]


----------



## Huzz (22 Jan 2004)

*Thanks*

Thanks O, that sounds like a very interesting conflict of ideas at the heart of our love affair with property.

BTW, how do you do those links - can you point me to a training spot? Thanks again O.


----------



## <A HREF=http://pub145.ezboard.com/baskaboutmoney.s (22 Jan 2004)

*Re: Thanks*


----------



## terrysgirl33 (24 Jan 2004)

*Re SMTM*

I caught this for the first time this week and liked it.  I didn't see all the program, but I would have to agree with soc, he didn't seem to be able to explore the reasons behind peoples overspending.  Yes, Alvin is a showman, but if there were no emotions involved, we would all be on the pigs back!!  Alvin seems to be able to get people to face whatever problem they are running away from by overspending.

The show I saw (couple with hiliday home in Donegal, #3) left the family in a situation where it wouldn't take much to put them back in the hole...


----------



## <A HREF=http://pub145.ezboard.com/baskaboutmoney.s (24 Jan 2004)

*Re: Re SMTM*

Discussion of episode three is here:


----------

