Sara Hogan: I want justice for PTSB variable rate customers

[Delboy]

Futures,
I think you may have missed the point of Sarahs article. Sarah took out a variable rate mortgage with PTSB. A variable mortgage , by definition is a mortgage which varies in accordance to market conditions ( this is the wording on my own standard variable rate mortgage ). Sarah is honouring her part of the loan contract , she is paying her loan in full. However her bank are not adhering to the terms of the contract.

Market conditions for PTSB = multi billion losses over the past 4 or 5 years!

 

[futures]

she is placing the blame for the high interest rates on the greed of the bank, not its customers.

Is the bank actually greedy?

They're a loss making bank. Blaming greedy banks/people is easy. In fact it's lazy.

How about blaming the bank and the people who are contributing to the losses by not paying their mortgages?

Look at all the politicians supporting the high SVR campaigns and making simplistic statements about Noonan forcing the banks to do X, Y and Z - will any of them have the honesty to support repossessions.

 

[jathclare]

Trackers are as much a problem as defaulters to the banks.

It would be fairer if everyone paid 2%, rathan than half paying 1% and the other half 4%. Of course touching trackers would make any goverment unelectable.

Therefore, the fairest thing is to give SVR a decent rate benchmarked to European averages.

The defaulters will be sorted out, give it time, but it shouldn't be drag on the SVR campaign.

 

[Delboy]

Trackers are as much a problem as defaulters to the banks.

It would be fairer if everyone paid 2%, rathan than half paying 1% and the other half 4%. Of course touching trackers would make any goverment unelectable.

Therefore, the fairest thing is to give SVR a decent rate benchmarked to European averages.

The defaulters will be sorted out, give it time, but it shouldn't be drag on the SVR campaign.

So many fairy tales contained in so few lines!

 

[Sarenco]

Trackers are as much a problem as defaulters to the banks.

It would be fairer if everyone paid 2%, rathan than half paying 1% and the other half 4%. Of course touching trackers would make any goverment unelectable.

Therefore, the fairest thing is to give SVR a decent rate benchmarked to European averages.

The defaulters will be sorted out, give it time, but it shouldn't be drag on the SVR campaign.

There are so many mis-understandings in this post that it's difficult to know where to start!

Firstly, trackers are not as much a problem as defaulters for the banks. It is a myth that our banks are losing money on trackers - there is a detailed post on here that sets out the relevant numbers. In contrast, banks are losing vast sums on defaulting mortgages.

Secondly, tracker mortgages (or indeed any mortgages) are contracts. The Government cannot simply wave a magic wand and change the contractual terms of any mortgage, however unfair you consider their terms. This has nothing to do with electoral politics - it has to do with simple contract law.

Thirdly, where do you think the money is going to come from to lower the SVR rate to a rate that is "benchmarked to European averages"? It's not going to fall from the sky.

I'll leave it there.

I am actually very supportive of the objectives of the SVR campaign but it will go nowhere if people simply rely on wishful thinking - it needs to be grounded in reality with concrete proposals.

 

[gnf_ireland]

Brendan - is it possible to do a poll on Ask About Money ? I would love if one existed with the following question:

"Would you support legislation which would see any Principal Private Residency in arrears of more than 180 days being repossessed in return for a cap on the SVR at 2% above ECB ? *condition that the bank and customer have attempted to find at least 2 solutions prior to repossession order*"


The whole concept that mortgages should have a lower interest rate to other lending is based on the principles that (a) the asset should cover the amount of the debt and (b) it should be relatively easy to recover the asset in the case of default. In Ireland neither would appear to apply currently

 

[jathclare]

There are so many mis-understandings in this post that it's difficult to know where to start!

Firstly, trackers are not as much a problem as defaulters for the banks. It is a myth that our banks are losing money on trackers - there is a detailed post on here that sets out the relevant numbers. In contrast, banks are losing vast sums on defaulting mortgages.

Secondly, tracker mortgages (or indeed any mortgages) are contracts. The Government cannot simply wave a magic wand and change the contractual terms of any mortgage, however unfair you consider their terms. This has nothing to do with electoral politics - it has to do with simple contract law.

Thirdly, where do you think the money is going to come from to lower the SVR rate to a rate that is "benchmarked to European averages"? It's not going to fall from the sky.

I'll leave it there.

I am actually very supportive of the objectives of the SVR campaign but it will go nowhere if people simply rely on wishful thinking - it needs to be grounded in reality with concrete proposals.

I'll keep my own opinions (not misunderstandings) which are based on 20 years of frontline banking. No money is needed my friend, just lobbying and pressure on banks, mostly owned by the state to reduce the rate people are paying. The banks make lots of money in very different ways and they are simply screwing people and speaking of contract law, they are also not following the good faith of the nature of a variable contract by failing to reduce rates in line with market conditions. Sort that out and the SVRs will fall. The negativity towards this campaing on this site is staggering. I'll leave it there.

 

[gnf_ireland]

The negativity towards this campaing on this site is staggering.

I don't agree that there is a negative towards campaigning on this site. I think the frustration among a number of the posters here is that popular myths are being bandied around as facts, and it would seriously undermine any reasonable argument in a debate. The fact that posters cannot agree here makes it very easy for banks to adopt the same 'status quo' position

they are also not following the good faith of the nature of a variable contract by failing to reduce rates in line with market conditions

The falling ECB rates are only a subset of the market conditions. The other two big market conditions are (a) negative equity - so asset does not cover the debt and therefore higher risk to the lender and (b) liquidity of the asset since it cannot be recovered to offset the debt.

Don't get me wrong, I really do want to see SVR's drop, but we have to acknowledge that ECB rates are only an element in the discussion and be reasonable on the other elements as well. If I could not recover an asset that is used as security on a loan, it is basically an unsecured loan and therefore higher risk applies.

 

[futures]

I don't agree that there is a negative towards campaigning on this site. I think the frustration among a number of the posters here is that popular myths are being bandied around as facts, and it would seriously undermine any reasonable argument in a debate. The fact that posters cannot agree here makes it very easy for banks to adopt the same 'status quo' position


The falling ECB rates are only a subset of the market conditions. The other two big market conditions are (a) negative equity - so asset does not cover the debt and therefore higher risk to the lender and (b) liquidity of the asset since it cannot be recovered to offset the debt.

Don't get me wrong, I really do want to see SVR's drop, but we have to acknowledge that ECB rates are only an element in the discussion and be reasonable on the other elements as well. If I could not recover an asset that is used as security on a loan, it is basically an unsecured loan and therefore higher risk applies.

Yes.

It's staggering that pointing out facts rather than populist fantasy is perceived as "Negativity".

A few years ago people tried to convince us we'd "Talk ourselves into a recession" if we faced facts- once again unpalatable truths are verboten it seems

 

[Dermot]

Trackers are as much a problem as defaulters to the banks.


It would be fairer if everyone paid 2%, rathan than half paying 1% and the other half 4%. Of course touching trackers would make any goverment unelectable.

Non performing trackers Yes but performing trackers No

What Government could change my Tracker or anyone else's. Mine are cast iron contracts.

 

[Sarenco]

I don't agree that there is a negative towards campaigning on this site. I think the frustration among a number of the posters here is that popular myths are being bandied around as facts, and it would seriously undermine any reasonable argument in a debate. The fact that posters cannot agree here makes it very easy for banks to adopt the same 'status quo' position
.

Thanks gnf - this pretty much sums up where I am on this issue.

I am supportive of the objectives of the campaign but I find it frustrating that very few posters seem to be willing to present reasoned, cogent arguments for their position or concrete proposals for change. The "cos I said so" argument simply does not wash with adults.

 

[tommyryan55]

I feel we need to move away from talk of increasing trackers this is not helpful. The people on trackers are entitled to them.

Any legislation to adjust the terms of a tracker would fail.