Screwing the banks because they screwed us!

mikep

I'm really pissed off with the bankers as are most people.
We are all aware that they aren't giving credit to small businesses which is driving some to the wall.
I just had a thought although probably too simple, inspired by the lady in Kerry who orgainsed a protest to force the government to make the banks do their bit to help small businesses
I wonder could people power work?
Here's my plan...all who have deposits in irish banks transfer them to an overseas provider (rabo or halifax etc), when doing so insist that you see the manager of the branch and let them know why this is being done...(i.e. tell them how pissed off you are with them and what they have done..start being a bank for the people who use them...not their investors.. in anyway you see fit!!) if enough people do this the word will filter up to the top brass the something has to be done or they go out of business!
Before everybody starts jumping up and down about how this will ruin the irish banks or how the depositers will loose money...just think about it...make different suggestions..there has to be a way to stick it to these gob****es....

TheInquisitor

Ah sure the banks are grand

Dob74

The banks have a right to lend, to whom ever they want to.
If it is profitable for them to lend, then they will lend.
If a business has to be lent money to keep it going it probably isnt a viable business.
Banks are not the only place to access credit.
And the fact that banks where doleing out money to freely. Is the reason for the economic mess where in. Its no harm that banks dont automaticly give out loans to everyone.

MiniDriver

The banks aren't lending because they are insolvent. If you switch your money to a foreign bank, you'll find that they're insolvent too.

SEPT 23 1989

Dob74 wrote: »

The banks have a right to lend, to whom ever they want to.
If it is profitable for them to lend, then they will lend.
If a business has to be lent money to keep it going it probably isnt a viable business.
Banks are not the only place to access credit.
And the fact that banks where doleing out money to freely. Is the reason for the economic mess where in. Its no harm that banks dont automaticly give out loans to everyone.

so are the banks in this country "viable"
because we the taxpayer had to lend them money to keep trading

parker kent

Surely it's in our interests to hope that the banks do well. Nose, spite and face spring to mind with some comments I hear these days

Hermy

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

so are the banks in this country "viable"
because we the taxpayer had to lend them money to keep trading

+1

TheInquisitor

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

so are the banks in this country "viable"
because we the taxpayer had to lend them money to keep trading

Sure the banks aren't viable in any country! Every country has had to help their banks, America has bailed out their banks using the TARP program, England has done it by monetary easing poilicies and Europe has done it by making much more cash available. Irish banks are hardly alone

oscarBravo

Dob74 wrote: »

If a business has to be lent money to keep it going it probably isnt a viable business.

Someday you'll own a business, look back on that statement, and cringe.

ejmaztec

As regards the man in the street, or small to medium sized businesses, the banks never lent any money without there being a strong possibility that the money was going to be repaid.

With the big bucks property developers looking for millions or billions, the banks took huge risks lending these people money, and the usual lending criteria went out the window. The bankers just crossed their fingers and hoped for the best.

At this stage the banks are completely paranoid and seem to assume that whatever businesses they finance are going to go bust within 24 hours. With the retail sector the way it is, they've probably got cause to worry.

Perhaps the banks want even more guarantees from the government before they risk lending money.

givyjoe81

Dob74 wrote: »

The banks have a right to lend, to whom ever they want to.
If it is profitable for them to lend, then they will lend.
If a business has to be lent money to keep it going it probably isnt a viable business.
Banks are not the only place to access credit.
And the fact that banks where doleing out money to freely. Is the reason for the economic mess where in. Its no harm that banks dont automaticly give out loans to everyone.

They sure do, the point is they have STOPPED lending to previously solvent business's which has directly caused many of these business's to go bust, mates sisters travel agent for one (last year refused to give her an overdraft). I have also been told by a friend who runs a couple of small businesses that his mates, running Spars have also been refused similar credit facilities meaning they literally have to let 90% run out (sold) before they can replace it), anyone else noticed a strange lack of stock in local convenience stores??

Also as is clearly the case, it was not SME's who got the banks into trouble, it was crazy huge loans to developers which have caused the mess, so pulling the credit facilities of SME's which DO in fact keep about 70% or more of people in a job is just plain crazy, these previously solvent business's didnt cause the banks massive hole in their deposits!!

Agree the banks have to be more prudent with their loans but they are clearly being overly cautious with the lending practice to small business. They were too laxed before and they now appear too stringent.

Back in October time they government was talking about pumping in money in return for controlling interest of the bank, which to my knowledge hasnt happened yet, and i think this is the reason why the banks are being so scrooge like in savage cuts in lending, they want to build up their reserves so they arent forced to giver over control to the government.

In a nutshell they were acting the boll0cks, and still are.

Spudmonkey

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

so are the banks in this country "viable"
because we the taxpayer had to lend them money to keep trading

So what do you suggest? That the government set up their own banks and administer money themselves?

To tell you the truth the banks are right to be cagey lending money now, especially to businesses that were formed as a result of the celtic tiger and depended on the good times to function!

Problem is, their cageness is ~8 years too late!!

SEPT 23 1989

Spudmonkey wrote: »

So what do you suggest? That the government set up their own banks and administer money themselves?

To tell you the truth the banks are right to be cagey lending money now, especially to businesses that were formed as a result of the celtic tiger and depended on the good times to function!

Problem is, their cageness is ~8 years too late!!

companies that have traded for the last 25-30 years are finding it impossible to get credit,if our hard earned tax money is being used to bail out these banks they should be ordered by the minister of finance to lend to "viable" businesses

but im afraid its never going to happen the corruption in this country is never ending everyone at the top in everyone elses pockets

when all the while small business owners are sweating over a few poxy grand overdraft to try and keep things running till things pick up

decades spent building up businesses only to see them destroyed

im sure anyone in an SME can understand this at the moment

Max Power1

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

so are the banks in this country "viable"
because we the taxpayer had to lend them money to keep trading

Max Power advises that the banks were not lent money - they were handed it free of charge

Spudmonkey

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

companies that have traded for the last 25-30 years are finding it impossible to get credit,if our hard earned tax money is being used to bail out these banks they should be ordered by the minister of finance to lend to "viable" businesses

but im afraid its never going to happen the corruption in this country is never ending everyone at the top in everyone elses pockets

when all the while small business owners are sweating over a few poxy grand overdraft to try and keep things running till things pick up

decades spent building up businesses only to see them destroyed

im sure anyone in an SME can understand this at the moment

The amount of time a business has been in operation does not make a difference, if they expanded too quickly in the last ten years then they were in for a fall. Take Tom Hogan Motors for example, I'm not sure of how many years it was open but it was pre-mid 90s anyway.

Besides some people are giving out about their coffee shops etc not being able to get credit? Do we really think giving these 20 grand are going to get them past the current economic conditions?

If businesses aren't carefully vetted before receiving credit, more will be giving out about the banks and they up to their old practises...

SEPT 23 1989

the banks have gone from 100mph - 0 no economy can survive this,expect the unemployment rate to hit 800,000

professore

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Besides some people are giving out about their coffee shops etc not being able to get credit? Do we really think giving these 20 grand are going to get them past the current economic conditions?

Maybe not but what about an SME employing 20 people with 1 M of orders on their books and needs a loan of 100K to buy materials and pay wages in order to fill those orders and wait the 60+ days in order to get paid? Is it not good sense to give them a loan? Business needs credit.

Spudmonkey

professore wrote: »

Maybe not but what about an SME employing 20 people with 1 M of orders on their books and needs a loan of 100K to buy materials and pay wages in order to fill those orders and wait the 60+ days in order to get paid? Is it not good sense to give them a loan? Business needs credit.

Yeah but thats a company with potential business, I'm not saying not to give money to them. I mean the ones with no future, regardless of the amount of money you throw at them.. Thats why they should be carefully examined, otherwise the tax payers may be footing a bigger bill than they face now!

SEPT 23 1989

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Yeah but thats a company with potential business, I'm not saying not to give money to them. I mean the ones with no future, regardless of the amount of money you throw at them.. Thats why they should be carefully examined, otherwise the tax payers may be footing a bigger bill than they face now!

even companies with potential business are being refused credit thats why you see massive job losses and this will continue

Spudmonkey

Any examples of this because I find it hard to believe a company like you said would be refused!

Guy:Incognito

I'm with the OP lets all transfer our money to Halifax. They'd never get in to trouble and need help from the government.................

Mr.Micro

Stekelly wrote: »

I'm with the OP lets all transfer our money to Halifax. They'd never get in to trouble and need help from the government.................

plus you get that little bit X:Dtra

Kama

If businesses aren't carefully vetted before receiving credit, more will be giving out about the banks and they up to their old practises...

But those coffee shops are structurally necessary to the Irish economy! They're too big to fail! If the coffee shops go down they'll take the tea shops with them, as they are so interdependent. I believe the State should take on the possible liabilities of the coffee shops, for the good of the nation as a whole. Preferably, we should pay more than the coffee-shops are worth, but not make them provide the sweet sugary liquidity we so require...

Any examples of this because I find it hard to believe a company like you said would be refused!

I find it hard to 'credit' any examples where people were lent to. A few in the credit unions, yes, but in cases like professore? Blood from stone, or in this case, from zombies...

JonathanAnon

oscarBravo wrote: »

Someday you'll own a business, look back on that statement, and cringe.

You've obviously never tried to get paid from an Irish person. I've waited up to two years to get paid for some invoices. A lot of Irish businesses are very mean spirited about paying their bills.

galwayrush

I have a small business and had to cut down using the banks as they turned out to be useless and more of a hinderance than a help to me. It took a while to work, but now, i use deposits from customers to build up a kitty and to buy materials either with cash, or the customer makes a cheque out to one of my suppliers. It made me lay off staff initially, but now, i employ more staff than i ever did, and i am saving a fortune in bank charges and overdraft interest rates. I will never be going back to depending on the useless banks again.

galwayrush

JonathanAnon wrote: »

You've obviously never tried to get paid from an Irish person. I've waited up to two years to get paid for some invoices. A lot of Irish businesses are very mean spirited about paying their bills.

Same here, now it's 50% up front, balance before goods leave my workshop, or if fitting, i demand 90% before leaving workshop and end up exposed only for the final 10%.

Dob74

oscarBravo wrote: »

Someday you'll own a business, look back on that statement, and cringe.

if a business has to be lent money to fund its day to day operations it isn't viable.
Only capital spending should be borrowed money.



ps i am self employed

oscarBravo

Dob74 wrote: »

if a business has to be lent money to fund its day to day operations it isn't viable.

Only if your definition of a viable business is one with perfectly regular-as-clockwork income.

Only capital spending should be borrowed money.

Hah - what makes you think banks are lending to small businesses for CapEx? In your dreams.

ps i am self employed

That's a different world from a growing business - believe me, I've been there.

Dannyboy83

mikep wrote: »

I'm really pissed off with the bankers as are most people.
We are all aware that they aren't giving credit to small businesses which is driving some to the wall.
I just had a thought although probably too simple, inspired by the lady in Kerry who orgainsed a protest to force the government to make the banks do their bit to help small businesses
I wonder could people power work?
Here's my plan...all who have deposits in irish banks transfer them to an overseas provider (rabo or halifax etc), when doing so insist that you see the manager of the branch and let them know why this is being done...(i.e. tell them how pissed off you are with them and what they have done..start being a bank for the people who use them...not their investors.. in anyway you see fit!!) if enough people do this the word will filter up to the top brass the something has to be done or they go out of business!
Before everybody starts jumping up and down about how this will ruin the irish banks or how the depositers will loose money...just think about it...make different suggestions..there has to be a way to stick it to these gob****es....

This would never work in a country like Ireland, vast majority of people don't want to be inconvenienced, just watch to watch the rugby, have a pint and keep their head in the sand.

24.8% of people are happy with the way things are, most of the rest will stop caring once they can pay the bills and have some disposable income again.

sovtek

Spudmonkey wrote: »

So what do you suggest? That the government set up their own banks and administer money themselves?

That's pretty much what should happen.

Spudmonkey

And who do they employ? Where do they get the money from? What happens to peoples savings when banks become insolvent?

luckyfrank

You cant screw that banks there the one's with the penis's we the public are the one's with the pussies

The goverment could have castrated one or two of them but they were impotent

Liam Byrne

luckyfrank wrote: »

You cant screw that banks there the one's with the penis's we the public are the one's with the pussies

The goverment could have castrated one or two of them but they were impotent

And courtesy of said-same scummy government, if we screw the banks then they come-a-running for that guarantee and we're all screwed anyway.

No responsibility for their own actions, because - like the government - when they screw up they can always get a few more quid from the easily-targetted PAYE taxpayer.

Kama

Freudian pschoanalysis of the bailouts? I like it!

Agent J

Last 10-15 years credit has being flowing like water.

There was obviously going to be an end to this and now we have the opposite situation in which the banks are being over cautious as opposed to being reckless lending and we have people claiming its not fair.

If a bank decided a business isnt viable even though it has been running through the good times.... Then maybe it should never have been given credit in the 1st place.

It comes down to who decides if the business is viable. The only people who can do that realitically are the banks and if they all turn down a business for credit then im sorry to say that business probably aint viable.

Spudmonkey

The country still needs banks though, might as well save the ones that are there but just regulate them more... again 8 years too late.

People can scream all they want about bailing out the banks but anyone who has taken a loan or anything of the sort and lived of credit can blame themselves just as much!

Liam Byrne

Agent J wrote: »

It comes down to who decides if the business is viable. The only people who can do that realitically are the banks and if they all turn down a business for credit then im sorry to say that business probably aint viable.

Hang on a sec....the BANK'S OWN HISTORY over the last few years has made the banks themselves unviable, to the point where we had to bail them out!

So forgive me if I refuse to take the opinion of a bank that isn't viable as an indication whether another business is viable.

If I got €15 billion after making crap business decisions that ran me into the ground, I'd still be viable, too!

Fighting Irish

mikep wrote: »

I'm really pissed off with the bankers as are most people.
We are all aware that they aren't giving credit to small businesses which is driving some to the wall.
I just had a thought although probably too simple, inspired by the lady in Kerry who orgainsed a protest to force the government to make the banks do their bit to help small businesses
I wonder could people power work?
Here's my plan...all who have deposits in irish banks transfer them to an overseas provider (rabo or halifax etc), when doing so insist that you see the manager of the branch and let them know why this is being done...(i.e. tell them how pissed off you are with them and what they have done..start being a bank for the people who use them...not their investors.. in anyway you see fit!!) if enough people do this the word will filter up to the top brass the something has to be done or they go out of business!
Before everybody starts jumping up and down about how this will ruin the irish banks or how the depositers will loose money...just think about it...make different suggestions..there has to be a way to stick it to these gob****es....

:rolleyes:

Agent J

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Hang on a sec....the BANK'S OWN HISTORY over the last few years has made the banks themselves unviable, to the point where we had to bail them out!

Yes. You are correct. However their business model involved making unwise lending choices. They are now going to the other side and being over catious and people are admonishing them for it.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So forgive me if I refuse to take the opinion of a bank that isn't viable as an indication whether another business is viable.

As is your right.

However. Whos opinion will you take then? Who has the ability to do what you need?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If I got €15 billion after making crap business decisions that ran me into the ground, I'd still be viable, too!

Some banks are needed. Others should have been let go to the wall.

oscarBravo

Agent J wrote: »

It comes down to who decides if the business is viable. The only people who can do that realitically are the banks and if they all turn down a business for credit then im sorry to say that business probably aint viable.

Here's the dilemma: what if the business is viable with credit, but not viable without it?

In other words, if a bank would make credit available to the business as required, the business would make a profit, repay the credit, contribute to the bank's profit, create employment, increase tax revenue...

...but if the banks decide not to make credit available, the business goes bust.

Does that mean the banks are re-defining "viable businesses" to mean "businesses that don't need banks"?

Does anyone else see a problem with this picture?

Spudmonkey

No because a viable business is one that if given credit, will make a profit and keep employing people... and pay the bank back of course.

A business that isn't viable is one that is doomed to fail regardless of whether it gets credit or not!

oscarBravo

But we're being told that the banks are the best judges of business viability - the same banks that lent too willingly a year ago, and won't lend at all now.

Excuse me if I remain skeptical.

Agent J

oscarBravo wrote: »

Here's the dilemma: what if the business is viable with credit, but not viable without it?

In other words, if a bank would make credit available to the business as required, the business would make a profit, repay the credit, contribute to the bank's profit, create employment, increase tax revenue...

...but if the banks decide not to make credit available, the business goes bust.

Does that mean the banks are re-defining "viable businesses" to mean "businesses that don't need banks"?

Does anyone else see a problem with this picture?

There is a slight flaw in your otherwise sound logic. You assume that if the business is given credit that it will make a profit. This isnt a certainty.

Of course there is an old saying that in order to get money from the banks you have to prove you dont need it.

See i think the banks have swung to ther other extreme and are possibly playing it too safely but on the other hand there is the elephant in the room that a lot of businesses are going to fail and the banks cant really afford to take any more hits.

As someone else had said during the good times when money was flowing freely there wasnt any complaints but now that tap has been shut off. Consideration must be given to people/businesses who got credit back then that maybe shouldnt have.

oscarBravo

Agent J wrote: »

There is a slight flaw in your otherwise sound logic. You assume that if the business is given credit that it will make a profit. This isnt a certainty.

I made no such assumption - I'm making the point that some businesses that would otherwise be viable may become unviable due to the denial of credit.

Consideration must be given to people/businesses who got credit back then that maybe shouldnt have.

Again, I'm not talking about them. It's a little facile to dismiss the problem of the banks destroying viable businesses with an airy "maybe they're going a little too far..." - the entire point of the existence of banks is to lend money. If they're not lending money, what purpose do they serve?

Case in point: my 4-year-old business had, up to this year, leased five vans from a number of leasing companies (basically, whoever the garage in question was an agent for). This year I wanted to trade up two of the vans for brand-new ones. Could I get new leases? Eventually - sort of. Never missed a payment, more turnover and profit than at any time previously when taking out a lease - not that they asked before.

This isn't a minor problem of the banks over-correcting their practices slightly. It's a systemic failure on the part of the banks to fulful their reason for existing in an economy, and it's going to damage the economy further if something isn't done about it.

Agent J

oscarBravo wrote: »

I made no such assumption - I'm making the point that some businesses that would otherwise be viable may become unviable due to the denial of credit.

Fine, Point accepted. But you didnt make that distinction in your original post.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Again, I'm not talking about them. It's a little facile to dismiss the problem of the banks destroying viable businesses with an airy "maybe they're going a little too far..." - the entire point of the existence of banks is to lend money. If they're not lending money, what purpose do they serve?

Again we come back to the issue of "Viable business". Truth is we don't know which ones are viable and which ones arent. The business owners have a bias as do the banks. However no business ower is going to want to admit that their business is not viable.

The entire point of banks is to make money, They do that through lending and deposits. Right now they dont have the deposit base to do the lending. The money which is being pumped in by the government is to try and plug the gap due to the collapse in the economy. It is not nearly enough to allow "business as usual". If the government didnt they the remaining loans/deposits would collapse and all hell would break loose. Which means any lending they do has to be overly prudent for the time being.

oscarBravo wrote: »

This isn't a minor problem of the banks over-correcting their practices slightly. It's a systemic failure on the part of the banks to fulful their reason for existing in an economy, and it's going to damage the economy further if something isn't done about it.

Banks are there to make money 1st and foremost. Never take your eye off that.

What do you propose be done? Anglo Irish has been nationalised and hasnt lent a red cent in the last 6 months.

oscarBravo

Agent J wrote: »

Fine, Point accepted. But you didnt make that distinction in your original post.

My bad; I thought it was implicit.

Again we come back to the issue of "Viable business". Truth is we don't know which ones are viable and which ones arent. The business owners have a bias as do the banks. However no business ower is going to want to admit that their business is not viable.

Question is, why do we trust the banks to make that call? If banks are so systemic to the economy that we have to dramatically increase our national debt in order to prop them up, then shouldn't we also be ensure that they, y'know, fulfil their systemic role?

More to the point, we can't afford to allow the banks to destroy potentially viable businesses by being as casual in their refusal to offer credit as they have been in their profligacy in the past. We seem to be saying that it was wrong of the banks to over-inflate the credit bubble, but it's perfectly OK for them to equally carelessly destroy the credit lifeblood that many businesses depend on.

The entire point of banks is to make money...

Let me stop you there. I'm not talking about banks in isolation. Taking a bank in isolation, it's a business, and if it fails, who cares: businesses fail.

But that's not the attitude we're taking to the banks. We talk about their systemic importance to the economy. We understand that they perform a function without which the economy doesn't function: they lend money. So we have to save the banks.

But what's the point in saving the banks if they then fail to fulfil their role as a key component of the economy?

The money which is being pumped in by the government is to try and plug the gap due to the collapse in the economy. It is not nearly enough to allow "business as usual".

Nobody's asking for business as usual; that's what brought us to where we are.

If the government didnt they the remaining loans/deposits would collapse and all hell would break loose. Which means any lending they do has to be overly prudent for the time being.

No, it doesn't have to be "overly prudent", it just has to be prudent. That would be a change for the good, right there.

Being overly prudent is a bad thing. We could introduce a blanket 10km/h speed limit on all Irish roads, including motorways, but I don't see anybody advocating it.

Banks are there to make money 1st and foremost. Never take your eye off that.

That equation changed when they started getting billions in taxpayers money. They owe us now.

What do you propose be done? Anglo Irish has been nationalised and hasnt lent a red cent in the last 6 months.

For a start, it would be nice if the banks actually asked to see some accounts before refusing to even talk to a potential borrower.

barryfield

Dob74 wrote: »

The banks have a right to lend, to whom ever they want to.
If it is profitable for them to lend, then they will lend.
If a business has to be lent money to keep it going it probably isnt a viable business.
Banks are not the only place to access credit.
And the fact that banks where doleing out money to freely. Is the reason for the economic mess where in. Its no harm that banks dont automaticly give out loans to everyone.

far removed from reality , probably an irish public servant with an irish public servants iq

KatieMalone

screw the banks????

you screw the banks you end up in jail, they screw you they end up in the Bahamas.

KatieMalone

barryfield wrote: »

far removed from reality , probably an irish public servant with an irish public servants iq

agreed. yer man is living in disneyland.

Dob74

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

so are the banks in this country "viable"
because we the taxpayer had to lend them money to keep trading

The banks in this country are not viable.
Its a shame we bailed them out.

Dob74

barryfield wrote: »

far removed from reality , probably an irish public servant with an irish public servants iq

The aim of business is to make money.
Not to get in debt to the bank.

The banks by doleing out loans to everyone who wanted one, pushed the price of everything up to an unrealistic level.
Giving loans out to cover day to day expenses is only going to paper over the cracks of a business not fix it.