Bankers May Not Be Nice People

PMBC

CruelCoin wrote: »

Profit driven systems have created a scenario where the average industrial wage has 2 cars in every driveway, foreign holidays, tvs in every room and plentiful amounts of free time, choice of goods, etc.

There is no, and i mean no, alternative that has ever delivered as much prosperity to the general populace "majority" as capitalism.

The alternative is a socialist ****hole where we're all equal, and all equally poor.

I don't have a position on the OP's issue but IMO Ireland, UK, USA did not follow Capitalist principles by rescuing bank/s. Regarding socialism, you are probably referring to places like USSR former and N Korea currently.
Perhaps a mixture of the best of both systems should be given a chance. Ever increasing production and consumption is illogical as it neglects the systems overall ability/limits to resources. Yes we can have new technologies but they take time to develop and be proven and also have limits resource wise.

doinotlikethat

bajer101 wrote: »

Another interesting aspect of the reply I received from the bank was that it was printed on both sides of the paper, which I think is the first time this has happened. I nearly could have missed the second page if I were a vulnerable person.

Lad....C'mon

server down

CruelCoin wrote: »

That is not how it works in the slightest.

As I said later that post was exactly taken line for line, word for word, from the Bank Of England paper on money creation.

CruelCoin wrote: »

That creates extra money supply, not extra money.

If i lend you a euro, then you lend on, and your lendee lends again, thesingular 1 euro behaves as 3.

But it is not 3.

Quantity and supply are not the same when it comes to money. I think that's sailing past you.

Thats the velocity of money, its nothing to do with the broad money supply.

The supply of money as measured by any modern definition includes all money on deposit. In fact that is the least broad definition of money ( called M1).

To see how a loan creates money. Image two scenarios.

1) I have a house that I own outright and I sell it for 400K, to somebody who got a 400K loan. After the sale I clearly have 400K in my deposit account. Which is money. Thats new money I can spend. The banks dont get that money from the central bank and reserves only limit how much money they loan ( i.e create).
2) I have a house that I own outright and I sell it for 400K, to somebody who had 400K. After the sale I clearly have 400K in my deposit account but he hasn't. No increase in money.

server down

CruelCoin wrote: »

Profit driven systems have created a scenario where the average industrial wage has 2 cars in every driveway, foreign holidays, tvs in every room and plentiful amounts of free time, choice of goods, etc.

There is no, and i mean no, alternative that has ever delivered as much prosperity to the general populace "majority" as capitalism.

The alternative is a socialist ****hole where we're all equal, and all equally poor.

We moved on from criticsing banks and financial capitalism ( points often made by right wing economists) to socialism. Either its bad banks, or socialism. Apparently can't have regulated banks in capitalism.

server down

PMBC wrote: »

I don't have a position on the OP's issue but IMO Ireland, UK, USA did not follow Capitalist principles by rescuing bank/s. Regarding socialism, you are probably referring to places like USSR former and N Korea currently.
Perhaps a mixture of the best of both systems should be given a chance. Ever increasing production and consumption is illogical as it neglects the systems overall ability/limits to resources. Yes we can have new technologies but they take time to develop and be proven and also have limits resource wise.

And most of our banks are in fact government owned still after having been bailed out by taxpayers, but are examples nevertheless of how profit making systems are always better than socialism. Even though nationalising banks is one of the most radical socialist positions, or it used to be.

turbbo

server down wrote: »

We moved on from criticsing banks and financial capitalism ( points often made by right wing economists) to socialism. Either its bad banks, or socialism. Apparently can't have regulated banks in capitalism.

Yeah title of this thread - Bankers May Not Be Nice People -

I've met a few of them in my time and I would concur.
Think about it - these are people who work with money - of course they change overtime when they see money and greed in everything they do.
To find one that is sound would be like finding a drug dealer that doesn't do any drugs.

server down

seamus wrote: »

Actually in fundamental terms, the small print/fine print/T's & C's are often just a courtesy to the customer. They go in there to make things clearer and avoid lengthy argument with customers.

Much of it is already enshrined in contract law and applies whether or not they were in the small print and whether or not the bank contacted the individual.

In the OP's case, the bank is not obliged to notify the customer that they can use money from other accounts, and not necessarily obliged to notify the customer of a missed repayment. The customer has the responsibility for making the payments, it's not the bank's responsibility to notify them of missed ones - the customer should already know they've missed a payment.

One could argue that the bank may not be permitted to charge any penalties unless they've notified the customer. But they are perfectly entitled to take the repayments from the customer's other accounts, without notification.

You are a poster who tends to be very certain in your views, but that statement would be wrong under American law at least. And given the fact that you thanked a post that was clearly wrong about money creation, its possible you are wrong about this too.

I can't find the equivalent Irish law. However I will continue to look.

topper75

DeanAustin wrote: »

... I'm always surprised by the amount of callous pontificating that goes on in threads like this. Some hard, heartless bastards in this country.

I too long for the days when money used to be about heart.

I think it was the era after chemostynthesis but before the development of photosynthesis. I can't quite recall that episode of Reeling in the Years.

CruelCoin

server down wrote: »

We moved on from criticsing banks and financial capitalism ( points often made by right wing economists) to socialism. Either its bad banks, or socialism. Apparently can't have regulated banks in capitalism.

The main beef that the OP seems to be sitting at now is that the terms were on double sided paper, and that he should therefore be annoyed his account got locked.
Regulate for that. Good grief.

server down

CruelCoin wrote: »

The main beef that the OP seems to be sitting at now is that the terms were on double sided paper, and that he should therefore be annoyed his account got locked.
Regulate for that. Good grief.

Easy enough. MAke the law state that contingent conditions and obligations of an offer must be set forth clearly and conspicuously at the outset of the offer

And similar for penalities.

I mean in general, to be fair to most providers, if you are in arrears at all ( and this has happened to me once with an expired Credit card and utilities) they send you a letter with BIG BOLD WRITING about the arrears, and the penalties, and any potential cut off.

seamus

server down wrote: »

And given the fact that you thanked a post that was clearly wrong about money creation, its possible you are wrong about this too.

Double-entry accounting does not create money.

You've either grossly misunderstood something or been grossly misinformed.

Anyway, I think you'll find that contract law runs deeper than "if it's not written down, it doesn't exist". If you give John a loan, but there's no contract, there's still a loan. If John doesn't pay you back, there's an enforceable loan that a court will rule in your favour on.

Not everything has to be written in the T's & C's.

server down

seamus wrote: »

Double-entry accounting does not create money.

You've either grossly misunderstood something or been grossly misinformed.

So certain and yet so wrong.

server down

seamus wrote: »

Anyway, I think you'll find that contract law runs deeper than "if it's not written down, it doesn't exist". If you give John a loan, but there's no contract, there's still a loan. If John doesn't pay you back, there's an enforceable loan that a court will rule in your favour on.

Not everything has to be written in the T's & C's.

I really didnt say anything about not writing down. To be honest I dont know the Irish law on this but you on the other hand tend to pontificate about stuff you think you know, probably based on business studies 101 with Father O'Grady in 1986.

Unlike you I am looking for the actual answer, it looks like the American FSC does regulate where you can use small print and wher you must be conspicuous, but the law in Ireland is unclear.

server down

server down wrote: »

What if it is in invisible ink?

It's hard to find the Irish law but other countries have laws on how conspicious the text needs to be.

from wiki

US FTC regulations state that unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are unlawful. (15 USC § 45 (a))[6] In relevant part, they state that contingent conditions and obligations of an offer must be set forth clearly and conspicuously at the outset of the offer, and that disclosure of the terms of the offer set forth in a footnote of an advertisement to which reference is made by an asterisk or other symbol placed next to the offer, is not regarded as making disclosure at the outset. (16 CFR 251.1)[5]

Nothing remotely unfair or deceptive in giving a facility and then stopping it when the recipient decides to renege on other obligations.

Unless...unless you are actually making the case that a person has to give a facility and continue conferring it notwithstanding that the recipient has welshed on his obligations? And not to do so is deception?

But you...can't be...can you?

maryishere

turbbo wrote: »

Yeah title of this thread - Bankers May Not Be Nice People -

I've met a few of them in my time and I would concur.
Think about it - these are people who work with money - of course they change overtime when they see money and greed in everything they do.
To find one that is sound would be like finding a drug dealer that doesn't do any drugs.

What annoys me about the bankers is that there is no regulation - for example I know of one banker in the tiger years who cold called people trying to sell them pensions. Most people could resist his polished sales patter and answers for everything, but he was a financial expert and very persuasive. I know one vulnerable person who was successfully able to argue a pension was something he could neither justify or afford, but unfortunately the banker was able to sell an interest only mortgage instead, which was completely unsuitable for his needs as he could not afford it. He was never told what the repayments inc capital would be once the interest only period expired. Instead he was told the mortgage would be his pension and he needed a pension, trust him. Bankers, especially those who cold-called their victims offering free advice, the lowest of the low. Jail would be too good for them.

Dohnjoe

maryishere wrote: »

What annoys me about the bankers is that there is no regulation - for example I know of one banker in the tiger years who cold called people trying to sell them pensions. Most people could resist his polished sales patter and answers for everything, but he was a financial expert and very persuasive. I know one vulnerable person who was successfully able to argue a pension was something he could neither justify or afford, but unfortunately the banker was able to sell an interest only mortgage instead, which was completely unsuitable for his needs as he could not afford it. He was never told what the repayments inc capital would be once the interest only period expired. Instead he was told the mortgage would be his pension and he needed a pension, trust him. Bankers, especially those who cold-called their victims offering free advice, the lowest of the low. Jail would be too good for them.

Not sure of that specific example, but there is a vast amount of regulation within banking. It also increased further after 2007/2008

maryishere

maryishere wrote: »

What annoys me about the bankers is that there is no regulation - for example I know of one banker in the tiger years who cold called people trying to sell them pensions. Most people could resist his polished sales patter and answers for everything, but he was a financial expert and very persuasive. I know one vulnerable person who was successfully able to argue a pension was something he could neither justify or afford, but unfortunately the banker was able to sell an interest only mortgage instead, which was completely unsuitable for his needs as he could not afford it. He was never told what the repayments inc capital would be once the interest only period expired. Instead he was told the mortgage would be his pension and he needed a pension, trust him. Bankers, especially those who cold-called their victims offering free advice, the lowest of the low. Jail would be too good for them.

Then you might aswell include life insurance, assurance, or pretty much anything that might involve binding terms/contract. All of which has been sold through cold calling. I've done it myself. it's just sales. You seek to sell a product or service with recurring charges, talk over the terms, and get your commission. You deal with endless amounts of rude, ignorant, and insulting potential customers, and generally don't really care what you're selling them, because ultimately, the customer just has to read the contract to understand what they're signing up to. No trickery, because that makes the contract invalid. As i said before, most people don't fully read a contract... they just make assumptions.

maryishere

Deleted User wrote: »

Then you might aswell include life insurance, assurance, or pretty much anything that might involve binding terms/contract.

Actually selling a mortgage product was more serious / dangerous for the buyer, because not only can the buyer lose all the money they put in, they can literally lose everything else they own as well.

Deleted User wrote: »

No trickery, because that makes the contract invalid.

Do you think in those instances if the banker was involved in trickery then the contract should be invalid?

turbbo

maryishere wrote: »

What annoys me about the bankers is that there is no regulation - for example I know of one banker in the tiger years who cold called people trying to sell them pensions. Most people could resist his polished sales patter and answers for everything, but he was a financial expert and very persuasive. I know one vulnerable person who was successfully able to argue a pension was something he could neither justify or afford, but unfortunately the banker was able to sell an interest only mortgage instead, which was completely unsuitable for his needs as he could not afford it. He was never told what the repayments inc capital would be once the interest only period expired. Instead he was told the mortgage would be his pension and he needed a pension, trust him. Bankers, especially those who cold-called their victims offering free advice, the lowest of the low. Jail would be too good for them.

Money corrupts almost everyone, only the very stable and strong willed are able to resist the natural temptation for greed and banking is kind of a university of greed.
The ECU and the lending that went on in Ireland here in the celtic tiger was a relatively new phenomena for Ireland. We weren't tightly governed in terms of the central bank and we could argue that the central bank is not able to fill the shoes of a modern day banking regulator for Ireland. I think there needs to be a lot of forced redundancies there and we need an organisation up to the task of dealing with the complicated banking structures of the modern day.
I think this we be high on the list of any Irish Government - higher than homelessness(if we want to prevent more and more of it). And higher than health. However populism prevails and we'll stumble along with the motley crew we have already in the central bank.

retro:electro

I think where the op goes wrong is attempting to sandwich his experience in with words like "tracker mortgages" and "Celtic tiger" in order to give his plight more legitimacy- it doesn't.
At what point do you look inward and recognise that is was you who was at fault here- and accept responsibility for that. Instead of trying to finger wag the blame in every other direction, maybe realise that it was due to your ineptitude that this ever occurred in the first place.

maryishere

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Not sure of that specific example, but there is a vast amount of regulation within banking. It also increased further after 2007/2008

There was not enough regulation in 2005 / 2006. People still suffer because of that though. Lives have been lost.

maryishere

maryishere wrote: »

Actually selling a mortgage product was more serious / dangerous for the buyer, because not only can the buyer lose all the money they put in, they can literally lose everything else they own as well.

Same as with most things, really. A skilled credit controller/debt collection specialist can usually gain both what was owed and plenty of interest besides through the securing of assets. Generally, the courts don't favor debtors if the company has their facts straight.

Do you think in those instances if the banker was involved in trickery then the contract should be invalid?

Yup. I do. And the contract can be made invalid if trickery is proven. These things leave a paper trail, especially if conversations are recorded.

I'm not seeking to defend banks or businesses. There is a ****load of dodgy behavior going on every day which is not monitored and frankly, government organizations tend to ignore such behavior. Oh, they make laws regarding the more obvious types of behavior and sometimes enforce it for PR purposes, but mostly they're ineffective.

There is a phrase I hated hearing when I was teaching. A coin has two sides. Ugh. Annoys the crap out of me for some reason, but it is applicable here. Reponsibility for any financial related situation rests on both parties.

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Not sure of that specific example, but there is a vast amount of regulation within banking. It also increased further after 2007/2008

Ask any trained accountant (better yet an auditor) about the sheer amount of loop-holes within corporate or financial law. TBH I've always figured they created these intricately detailed laws and regulations to confuse everyone so much that they can manipulate the law at will.

I taught CFA ethics for three semesters and even at the end I could barely understand the CFA system, simply because of the language used. The ethics themselves were relatively straightforward but the remainder of the CFA system? Horrible. Different language completely.

server down

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nothing remotely unfair or deceptive in giving a facility and then stopping it when the recipient decides to renege on other obligations.

Unless...unless you are actually making the case that a person has to give a facility and continue conferring it notwithstanding that the recipient has welshed on his obligations? And not to do so is deception?

But you...can't be...can you?

I could be but I am not. I’m questioning the notice and how it was given, how conspicuous text needs to be in general in contracts, and also the legality of freezing accounts. So is the op. Nobody is saying that he was right to welsh. I’m not getting much information on those points either. Lots of outrage at the op.

On the thread title I’m questioning the people who think banks are good and wondering why the obsession with contracts works one way.

I’ve also educated people on money creation.

server down

server down wrote: »

On the thread title I’m questioning the people who think banks are good and

banks are neutral. Neither good or bad. It's a business, pure and simple. Bankers are employees working within the rules of their company. So. I'd likely defend bankers, but not banks.

wondering why the obsession with contracts works one way. .

why do you think that?

server down

server down wrote: »

I could be but I am not. I’m questioning the notice and how it was given, how conspicuous text needs to be in general in contracts, and also the legality of freezing accounts. So is the op. Nobody is saying that he was right to welsh. I’m not getting much information on those points either. Lots of outrage at the op.

On the thread title I’m questioning the people who think banks are good and wondering why the obsession with contracts works one way.

I’ve also educated people on money creation.

But the principle that banks can set off one account against another is not in the least bit deceptive or unfair, subject to certain qualifications. In fact it exists in common law here, there is no need to specify it at all. Where they are different types of accounts, any loan agreement or terms and conditions I've seen from banks explicitly extend that general principle to cover other types of accounts.

maryishere

Deleted User wrote: »

banks are neutral. Neither good or bad. It's a business, pure and simple. Bankers are employees working within the rules of their company. So. I'd likely defend bankers, but not banks.

Not all bankers in the 2005 / 2006 period were employees working within the rules of their company. Some broke rules, did not follow rules, done whatever they could to get the sale, get the commission, get the business. Some banks were much better managed than other banks / building societies.

Same as any profession, there were rogues. All foreign banks regarded Ireland as "the wild west" of banking in 04 / 05 / 06. No wonder.

368100

server down wrote: »

You are a poster who tends to be very certain in your views, but that statement would be wrong under American law at least. And given the fact that you thanked a post that was clearly wrong about money creation, its possible you are wrong about this too.

I can't find the equivalent Irish law. However I will continue to look.

Respectfully, seamus' post is very incorrect. I just cant find his post to quote.

Terms and conditions form part of the framework contract in payments services regulations so they are a legal requirement.

Also, a bank has a responsibility to notify a customer of a missed payment if the loan remians in arrears over 10 business days and seek to agree an approach, again this is a legal requirement, section 8 of consumer protection code.

A bank is not required to notify a customer if they source a repayment from another of the customer's account but they need to have outlined this in the terms and conditions which the customer agrees to before drawdown. It's called a right of set off.

bajer101

CruelCoin wrote: »

The main beef that the OP seems to be sitting at now is that the terms were on double sided paper, and that he should therefore be annoyed his account got locked.
Regulate for that. Good grief.

OP here. That is not my main beef at all. My main beef is that they cancelled my account without adequately informing me. It has been established that the only notification that they sent me was in early July stating that my accounts may be cancelled. There were no more notifications, emails, phone calls, texts, or in-app messages letting me know that this actually happened. I discovered it when my card got declined. A card for an account that had adequate funds.

I believe they just messed up. When I initially queried how this happened without more notification, I was told that I was sent a letter in September stating this action was imminent. I never received this letter and when I asked them to investigate, they have admitted it was never sent.

Maybe I could sue them and really send the people on this thread into apoplexy?

bajer101

bajer101 wrote: »

Maybe I could sue them and really send the people on this thread into apoplexy?

You should. Judges need a laugh too!

Can you imagine the cross exam..."so Mr. Bajer, you reneged on a loan, expected the bank to still extend a facility to you, got the letter, but had you been a vulnerable person, which you are not, you might have missed that they wrote some of it on the back of the sheet you received?".

I don't think McMahon and Binchy will be adding a chapter on the new ground broken in that case!