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

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

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.
 
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.
 
44brendan said:
Bottom line is that nothing will happen without a competitor entering the market or one of the existing banks breaking rank!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sarenco said:
The State's investment in the banks was primarily about protecting depositors - not ensuring low rates for borrowers.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top